Slashdot Mirror


Vatican Warns That Internet Promotes Satanism

Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that the Roman Catholic Church has warned that the internet has fueled a surge in Satanism that has led to a sharp rise in the demand for exorcists. 'The internet makes it much easier than in the past to find information about Satanism. In just a few minutes you can contact Satanist groups and research occultism,' says Carlo Climati, a member of the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome who specializes in the dangers posed to young people by Satanism. Organizers of a six-day conference that has brought together more than 60 Catholic clergy as well as doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and youth workers, co-sponsored by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments and the Congregation for Clergy, say the rise of Satanism has been dangerously underestimated in recent years."

585 comments

  1. Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Internet Warns That The Vatican Promotes Stupidity.

    1. Re:Back at you. by stonedcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hail satan!

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    2. Re:Back at you. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They appear to be using "the Internet" as a scapegoat (not to be confused with goatse, but an understandable mistake considering where they often lodge their noggins). People are doing the same shit that they always have but now they can:
      * find it easier on the internet
      * find others who are doing it on the internet
      * blame the internet when they get caught

      Meet the new boogeyman, same s the old boogeyman.

    3. Re:Back at you. by mbeware · · Score: 1

      They might be on something. Internet also increased the use of the unlucky number 13...

    4. Re:Back at you. by clang_jangle · · Score: 3, Funny

      clang_jangle@gaurahari$ sudo emerge -vauND satan

      These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

      Calculating dependencies... done!

      emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "satan".

      emerge: searching for similar names...
      emerge: Maybe you meant any of these: app-crypt/stan, dev-scheme/stalin, media-sound/sonata?

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    5. Re:Back at you. by jhigh · · Score: 0, Troll

      How are they using the Internet as a scapegoat? A scapegoat for what?

      The knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment on Slashdot is always amusing. The same people ridiculing religious people for being "ignorant" fail to either a) rtfa that they're commenting on or b) understand basic English.

      Why is it that the when the Vatican says "The internet makes it much easier than in the past to find information about Satanism," they are using the Internet as a scapegoat, yet when you state almost the same thing verbatim, "now they can find it (information about Satanism, we presume, given the context) easier on the Internet," you are somehow a beacon of enlightenment?

      The Vatican stated fact: you have more "Satanists" because there is more information about it available to everyone. Just like you have more people growing their own marijuana or diagnosing their own medical problems. The Telegraph and Slashdot both hate religion so they've decided to twist and distort in order to ridicule religion.

      Meet the new boogeyman, same as the old boogeyman, as you would say.

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    6. Re:Back at you. by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 1, Troll

      Your comments make sense if you read the Slashdot headline and then commented. Now, go RTFA and see that you said exactly what the Vatican officials said, only with more smugness.

    7. Re:Back at you. by peragrin · · Score: 2

      ah you need to use Sorcerer Linux in order to build satan and his dependencies.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one don't ridicule religious people. I think that people have a right to believe in whatever superstition they choose to believe in, and those who don't believe in superstition have a right to their opinions as well as long as they leave Santa Claus alone.

    9. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find this is much easier with Satanbuntu.

      apt-get build-dep satan
      make satan
      make install
      satan

    10. Re:Back at you. by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      If they advocated some control over the internet (like riaa and politicians around the world do) because of the increase in possessions, then I would agree that they confuse effects with causes. But from TFA I understand they take the development of internet as an established fact and they say we must be better prepared, the problem has been underestimated. Which seems a normal things to say at a conference about exorcisms.
      Of course I may have misunderstood them, it would be better to discuss official documents instead of TFA.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    11. Re:Back at you. by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Pretty much. And one of the stupid things Catholicism promotes is the idea of Satan. Honestly, one cannot be a satanist unless one is a christian, because Christianity makes it's hallmark the separates the continuity of good and evil into a polarity that is then split into autonomous creations.

      Honestly, there is no reason for a scapegoat unless one is going to continuously blame others for your problems. Rational people understand that is necessary to take some control over their own lives. They can't just sit back and wait for a deity to provide for them. They can't just blame the satanist when things are not working out.

      If there is anythings that makes christianity in general, and catholicism in particular, a joke to some many people is the externalization of blame. If satanism a problem, then clean up your own backyard. We can start with the focusing of the teaching of the christ in christianity and his directive to be better people, rather than to use any means necessary to force others to behave in ways that we agree. Of course christianity is not unique in it's use of force to promote religion, but it is, IMHO, uniquely positions to promote self discipline over blame.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    12. Re:Back at you. by tautog · · Score: 1

      Move out of your parent's basement and I suspect your belief in Santa Claus will subside, as well...

    13. Re:Back at you. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2

      [quote]The Vatican stated fact: you have more "Satanists" because there is more information about it available to everyone.[/quote]

      The Father in the article admits that the number of "posessions" is very small, so is it really worth convening 60 church officials for a week to talk about what he considered to be a small problem? In regards to the demon possessions, I wouldn't be surprised if they're all just untreated severe mental disorders or chemical problems.

      I think it's more likely to be a deliberate distraction from the internal problems they are having.

    14. Re:Back at you. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, should the "god" that catholizism is promoting be real - then satanism is the only option. Because that god is an evil bastard and every resistance to the old fucker is legitimate. Obviously, the only resistance fighter within that particular universe is satan, so, yea, you should count me in on the lightbringer's side. Of course, the stories are just bullshit, so i just keep on keeping on....

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    15. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    16. Re:Back at you. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment on Slashdot is always amusing.

      Satanism is a religion. The only anti-religious sentiment here is coming straight from the Vatican.

    17. Re:Back at you. by beadfulthings · · Score: 2

      I am forced to agree with you. If one more devout Catholic informs me solemnly that Bill Gates is poisoning little African babies with his polio vaccine, I may throw up. It hasn't occurred to them that if Bill Gates had it in for little African babies, all he'd have to do would be to take his billions elsewhere. They're doing a far more effective job of demonizing the man than the Linux community was ever able to accomplish.

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    18. Re:Back at you. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      [Gabriele Amorth] (the "president for life" of the International Association of Exorcists [wikipedia.org]) claimed that the sex abuse scandals which have engulfed the Church in the US, Ireland, Germany and other countries, were proof that the anti-Christ was waging a war against the Holy See. He said Pope Benedict XVI believed "wholeheartedly" in the practice of exorcism.

      That is precisely where the church scapegoats the Internet for the church's own hideous sins. The Internet responsible for the increase in possessions, which is why these exorcists have so many more possessions to exorcise: it's the antichrist's war against the church. The church isn't the cult of baby rape and its coverup, it's the victim of a war by the antichrist.

      The church embraces the scapegoat as a fundamental practice. Why shouldn't it use it to blame someone else for its own sins, someone who doesn't exist except in the church's own propaganda?

      The Slashdot reaction isn't "knee-jerk", a reflex. It's a learned behavior to see through the church's lies and nonsense to find the church's own designed benefit and escape from blame. What's knee-jerk is to ignore proof of the church's guilt even when it's shoved in your face. Not quite a reflex, but a gut reaction trained into us early. The boogeyman doesn't exist, but the church and its crimes do.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    19. Re:Back at you. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That was basically Satan's argument in Paradise Lost.
      "Ye will not, if I trust
      To know ye right, or if ye know yourselves
      Natives and Sons of Heaven possessed before
      By none, and, if not equal all yet free,
      Equally free; for orders and degrees
      Are not with liberty, but well consist.
      Who can in reason, then, or right, assume
      Monarchy over such as live by right
      His equals; if in power and splendour less,
      In freedom equal? or can introduce
      Law and edict on us, who without law
      Err not? much less for this to be our Lord,
      And look for adoration to the abuse
      Of those imperial titles which assert
      Our being ordained to govern, not to serve!'"


      In essence and in more modern terms: "God is immensely powerful, but just because he is physically capable of beating us all to a bloody pulp if we disobey him doesn't mean he has the right to do so. We deserve to run our own lives, not just to do as God decrees because he is big enough to enforce his will by violence."
      Satan goes on to run the first uprising, and is promptly schooled on just what 'omnipotence' means in the form of the divine smackdown.

    20. Re:Back at you. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      At that time when the original lines of this "poem" where written, Satan was not called Satan, but Luzifer - "the Light Maker" of "the Light Bringer".

      And most people know, that Luzifer is only a fallen angle, a foot soldier of God.

      Satan does not really exist, somehow Luzifer got transformed of the the time into a bad ass demon called Satan ... imho pure propaganda ;D

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Back at you. by Astronomerguy · · Score: 1

      When asked to clarify, Pope Benedict exclaimed "All your soul belong to us!"

    22. Re:Back at you. by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      How are they using the Internet as a scapegoat? A scapegoat for what?

      Resurrecting an active belief in Satanism is easier for some old men than accepting the possibility that there might be something intrinsically wrong with an institution they have dedicated their lives to.

      That is, a resurgence in Satanic activities is a more acceptable explanation for all the pedophilia and sexual abuse by Catholic priests than the possibility that the Church itself is a sick institution. Instead they can claim their Church has been victimized by Satan and can be purified and able to carry on as it has always done. So, we can expect more persecution of those strange Christian reactionary cults that call themselves Satanist as well as a purging of some Catholic congregations of their more liberal or tolerant members. It probably will not be limited to just that either. If history is an indicator, the institution of the Catholic Church will probably eventually begin inquisitions into pagan and neopagan spirtualities that have no relation to Christianity.

      This bears watching. It could get quite serious. For instance, this week has seen religious riots and killings in Afghanistan over the report of the burning of a Koran half the world away. There is nothing intrinsically different between ignorant, gullible Islamists and ignorant, gullible Catholics. If the Catholic Church is beginning a campaign to mobilize its least educated masses, this could be very serious.

      --
      Will
    23. Re:Back at you. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well,

      satan is a very well known security audit tool.

      So if your emerge program can not find this, perhaps use apt-get? Or google for it?

      (I would not wonder if the catholics googled for satan and only did a simple hit count ... or confused the hits)

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Back at you. by sznupi · · Score: 2
      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    25. Re:Back at you. by mjwalshe · · Score: 2

      from what I see its the fringe Protestant cults in the USA that are doing this - condoms and birth control id give you that.

    26. Re:Back at you. by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's a whole bunch of people who call themselves Satanists who really don't actually believe in Christ (or even actually Satan) for that matter. If a group can appropriate the name of someone they don't believe in and use it in their religion, I would think that its certainly possible for others to follow the teachings of that same entity and call him something else, or even deny his existence entirely. That's what we call results-oriented diabolism.

      Obviously, if you didn't start out as a Christian or in a Christan-influenced area, you probably wouldn't use the terminology. Still, that's like when the Native Americans called European ships "giant birds" or whatever when they first saw them. They didn't have a word for ocean-going ship and no previous way to pick one up from the Europeans, so they made something up. That doesn't mean they weren't talking about ships. If you follow certain practices, then you are following Satanist practices, even if you say that you are actually following Zamfir, Master of the Pan Flute.

      Catholicism does not split things down into the line of good and evil. Having had to sit through Catholic education, I know that's more the realm of Manichaeism, which is definitely not Christianity. Catholics believe in one creation, and they do not believe in the equality of good and evil in Creation. Good is more powerful than evil and will always triumph. The only thing that gives evil the illusion of being equivalent to good is that free will allows humans the freedom to select evil if they want to, which tends to make it seem like just two equivalent choices in voting booth. Once selected, however, evil always either falls short of the promises, and sometimes, even some unintended good comes out of it because good is more powerful. So the teaching goes, in any event.

      As for Satan, my understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches are as follows:

      * Satan is real and a distinct entity. He was created by God and therefore subject to God's rules. Apparently, he is/was an angel, and so our understanding of his existence and his motivations are limited. He is supernatural, but limited, so he doesn't need a TV to lie to you, but he can't actually create things.
      * Satan can't make you do anything. Your God-given free will must be respected by him just as much as by any one else.
      * Satan can tempt you. That is to say, he's allowed to promote his way of life vigorously and by any means other than removing your free choice. This means that he's probably the world's first, and by far the best, global marketing/advertising firm.
      * You can choose to let Satan into your life and in that manner, he can do the whole possession thing. Apparently, Satan and his underlings, being real and supernatural, do have the ability to manifest, but likely if very specifically allowed in. My understanding is that you generally need to have made some sort of choice to allow that to happen. Perhaps even a specific set of choices, the practices therein referred to collectively as "Satanism".

      Okay, well, that's probably too much for someone who doesn't actually believe in God to bother with, but I think its important to realize that there is an entire set of logical premises out there that you accept if you are actually a Catholic. Having Satan exist may seem like an externalization of blame, but he's only an externalization if he's not actually real. If he's real, he's out there doing things, and those things are the Church's job to oppose. Either way, it seems to me that self-discipline IS what they are teaching: you have the choice to not be a Satanist, and no one can force you to be one, not even Satan himself.

    27. Re:Back at you. by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...the number of "posessions" is very small, so is it really worth convening 60 church officials for a week to talk about what he considered to be a small problem?

      Of course that is not worth it.

      But if you want to begin to mobilize the masses of uneducated and gullible Catholics in every corner of the western world, you need to start somewhere. And a good place to start is by demonizing the Internet, which is the one thing that is doing the most to reduce the number of uneducated Catholics who would be gullible enough to do whatever the Church tells them to do.

      This week has seen a couple of dozen killings in Afghanistan because somebody reportedly burned a Koran half a world away. There is no significant difference between an ignorant, gullible Islamist and an ignorant, gullible Catholic. Either can be turned into an explosive terrorist simply by feeding them disinformation about the world. If the Catholic Church is deliberately trying to keep its masses barefoot, pregnant, and in the pews by demonizing the Internet, this is cause for concern.

      --
      Will
    28. Re:Back at you. by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hell, the best promotion for Satan appears to be the Catholic church itself.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    29. Re:Back at you. by VFA · · Score: 2

      From summary:
      'The internet makes it much easier than in the past to find information about Satanism. In just a few minutes you can contact Satanist groups and research occultism,' says Carlo Climati, a member of the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome who specializes in the dangers posed to young people by Satanism.

      My comment:
      I wonder if there is a member of the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome who specializes in the dangers posed to young people by catholic priests molesting altar boys?

    30. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait ... did you just describe Christianity or the US political system?

    31. Re:Back at you. by ultranova · · Score: 2

      That is precisely where the church scapegoats the Internet for the church's own hideous sins. The Internet responsible for the increase in possessions, which is why these exorcists have so many more possessions to exorcise: it's the antichrist's war against the church. The church isn't the cult of baby rape and its coverup, it's the victim of a war by the antichrist.

      To be fair, there has been numerous accusations of the pope being the antichrist. These two claims sure seem to click together nicely, don't they?

      Also, Catholic Church is antichrist, as defined in the Bible: it embraces power, wealth and passing judgement, thus being pretty much the polar opposite of Christ, thus an anti-Christ.

      So, I guess Benedict and Palpatine looking similar isn't just a coincidence, eh ?-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:Back at you. by sznupi · · Score: 2

      Such propaganda is what the Demiurge would definitely desire... (together with branding classic gnostics as heretics; dystheism or maltheism also have it hard)

      Crafty. But we can't expect anything less from the ultimate damager and destroyer (two old that-what-we-don't-speak-about posts talking about it much better that I could in short amount of time)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    33. Re:Back at you. by beadfulthings · · Score: 1, Interesting

      from what I see its the fringe Protestant cults in the USA that are doing this - condoms and birth control id give you that.

      You may be right--as far as who's been approaching me, they've all been Catholics. Either way, there's a fine irony. The illiterate Muslim clerics in places like Sudan have finally decided that polio vaccine isn't really "of the Devil" and have given a green light to immunization. Their position has now been taken up by another set of aggressively "Christian" true believers who probably hate all Muslims. As nearly as I can tell, all Gates ever said was something to the effect that a program like his would be a good way to disseminate birth control if needed.

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    34. Re:Back at you. by sznupi · · Score: 2

      ...start with the focusing of the teaching of the christ...

      Except he's wrong! ;p But seriously, the christ is also a wolf masquerading as a sheep - "do what I say or suffer eternally"? "My fairly unremarkable, not anywhere near worst death is worth enough to balance out the deaths of 100+ billion homo sapiens sapiens and their 'sins' - largely arbitrary ones, all imposed on humanity by me with full foreknowledge"?

      That's something worthy of Demiurge (and probably why gnostics were labelled as heretics early on), deity of dystheism or maltheism, the ultimate sinner and destroyer (two old Usenet posts, hard to say anything better in time it takes to paste them)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    35. Re:Back at you. by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Are you, by chance, a new but still modest messiah, stoned for our sins?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    36. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Father in the article admits that the number of "posessions" is very small,"

      So the exorcist union is complaining that there's too much work?

    37. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read ALL of the things the Christ is supposed to have said it certainly wasn't for the betterment of people. That is only arrived at by selecting those bits which people today would consider virtuous. When you consider the chronology that the gospels were written in, the fact that the individual (if he ever even existed) wrote none of them himself, the differences of each gospel's Jesus that just happens to suit the writer, you can't with any certainty claim that there was anything virtuous about the person at all.

      Mark's Jesus is more of a Koresh figurehead than Matthews SupaJesus.

      What's really sad is that this stuff still ends up being debated as though it were any more real than Thor or Bachhus mythology.

    38. Re:Back at you. by 3p1ph4ny · · Score: 2

      I'm an atheist, and a devout one at that.

      > Honestly, one cannot be a satanist unless one is a christian, because Christianity makes it's hallmark the separates the continuity of good and evil into a polarity that is then split into autonomous creations.

      Patently false; you should read up on Satanism, it's actually fairly interesting. There are a bunch of different ``sects'', one of which is comprised of people who are entirely atheists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

      I think most satanists call themselves satanists because they enjoy trolling (I enjoy trolling too, so it's not a criticism). If you meet a satanist, it is unlikely she actually believes in the Judeo-Christian idea of satan.

    39. Re:Back at you. by RobertM1968 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [quote]The Vatican stated fact: you have more "Satanists" because there is more information about it available to everyone.[/quote]

      The Father in the article admits that the number of "posessions" is very small, so is it really worth convening 60 church officials for a week to talk about what he considered to be a small problem? In regards to the demon possessions, I wouldn't be surprised if they're all just untreated severe mental disorders or chemical problems.

      I think it's more likely to be a deliberate distraction from the internal problems they are having.

      The number of possessions is actually ZERO. I guess that qualifies as "very small". The thinking that people are becoming possessed is simply nonsense that the Vatican is promoting ON the Internet (or promoted on their "behalf" on the Internet) - but it's still nonsense. Part of the problem is that various sects of Christianity promote (in various places, including online) that people can excuse their baser or more vile actions by blaming it on the devil - which leads us right to situations like this.

      It's not the Internet that's the problem - it's the church.

    40. Re:Back at you. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lucifer was always the "light bringer" - from latin "lux" the light and "ferre" to carry. So it is the light bringer or the light bearer, but not the light maker. Of course, he was an angel of god, and I completely agree that most of the mythology is not biblical, but derived from Milton and Dante - the whole doctrine of hell is not biblical, but rather heretic, come to think of it. Then you got a lot of conflation if arabic ibis/shaitan demonology to top it off...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    41. Re:Back at you. by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Well, should the "god" that catholizism is promoting be real - then satanism is the only option. Because that god is an evil bastard and every resistance to the old fucker is legitimate. Obviously, the only resistance fighter within that particular universe is satan, so, yea, you should count me in on the lightbringer's side.

      One side being evil doesn't automatically or even likely make the other good. I really wish that people would learn this; it would make things a lot better here on Earth if people stopped assuming that fighting evil allows you to do absolutely anything and still remain non-evil. Imagine if the Bolsheviks had stuck with that, or the CIA, or even the Nazis (who thought they were fighting evil - that was their justification for the Holocaust). Imagine what life could be then.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    42. Re:Back at you. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Yes, Milton's Lucifer is quite some interesting character, indeed. Quite interesting that in Arabic mythology, Iblis/Shaitan takes the same role, the most highly educated and wise Djinn. He basically gets pissed off by being bullied around and takes matters into his own hands. Satan actually is kind of a prototypical nerd tired of getting bullied...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    43. Re:Back at you. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

      True, you got a point there - "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, nothing more nothing less". Indeed a lesson to learn. Somtimes you can use them for your goals, however....

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    44. Re:Back at you. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      "Demon possessions"? I own a couple, running right now on this box I'm typing on. Yeah, the Internet is certainly satanic; I mean, it's mostly run by daemons!

      You're absolutely right regarding the distraction. It's a lot like the game, "follow the money".

      Additionally, I love their methods, and wonder about past "controversies": "This publicly-funded library system is spreading false information about our religion because it includes other religions, we should destroy the library system." Where does it end? With all the gold in the coffers at the Vatican, that's where.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    45. Re:Back at you. by TheRealGrogan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The catholic church has much to fear about the internet... even worse than satanists, it puts their flock in contact with people who know the truth: There are no such things as gods or devils.

      They are losing their means of control.

    46. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... that's basically what they said. The internet makes finding information easier. That means that certain things will become more widespread. The same goes for religion. That's the Vatican has its own website, YouTube channel and a Facebook page for JPII's upcoming beatification. To say nothing of the gagillion or so websites, facebook pages, podcasts, etc, produced by Catholics around the world. This is a typical case someone taking a quote from someone "in the Vatican" and twisting it to look retarded.

    47. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a whole bunch of people who call themselves Satanists who really don't actually believe in Christ (or even actually Satan) for that matter. If a group can appropriate the name of someone they don't believe in and use it in their religion, I would think that its certainly possible for others to follow the teachings of that same entity and call him something else, or even deny his existence entirely.

      If you follow certain practices, then you are following Satanist practices, even if you say that you are actually following Zamfir, Master of the Pan Flute.

      I think you are mistaking paganism for satanism here.
      What christians have called satanism through the ages(anything they didn't like), and what can actually be called satanism by looking at a belief system is two very distinct things.

    48. Re:Back at you. by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      Another explanation is that the Internet makes it easier for parents to read about satanism, become concerned that their child is under the influence of Satan, and look up an exorcist.

    49. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Pretty much. And one of the stupid things Catholicism promotes is the idea of Satan. Honestly, one cannot be a satanist unless one is a christian, because Christianity makes it's hallmark the separates the continuity of good and evil into a polarity that is then split into autonomous creations."

      Actually,that isn't Christianity at all but an old heresy known as dualism.

      "If there is anythings that makes christianity in general, and catholicism in particular, a joke to some many people is the externalization of blame."

      So, do we blame the devil, or make everyone feel guilty by making everyone blame themselves? I'm confused.

      "Honestly, there is no reason for a scapegoat unless one is going to continuously blame others for your problems. Rational people understand that is necessary to take some control over their own lives. They can't just sit back and wait for a deity to provide for them. They can't just blame the satanist when things are not working out."

      "Faith without works is dead" That's from James. The translation is don't just pray and wish others well but get off your butt and do something. That's one reason why the Church does far more charity work than any other organization on earth.

      Just sayin.'

      Just s

    50. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's a whole bunch of people who call themselves Satanists who really don't actually believe in Christ (or even actually Satan) for that matter."

      Yes, but they're 12, and angry at their christian family/society.

    51. Re:Back at you. by griffjon · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the Internet is just spreading awareness of the symptoms of satanic possession, and that's leading to the uptake in exorcism requests. Or it's the endtimes approaching. Or perhaps twitter usage. Lots of fun correlations to draw. What do you say? Correlation is not causation? How intriguing.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    52. Re:Back at you. by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      the number of "posessions" is very small, so is it really worth convening 60 church officials for a week to talk about what he considered to be a small problem?

      Assuming they are demon possessions, I'd say that any increase is a cause for alarm. Since the church officials believe they are, it makes sense that they'd convene.

      In regards to the demon possessions, I wouldn't be surprised if they're all just untreated severe mental disorders or chemical problems.

      Catholicism tends to rule out natural maladies before sending in the exorcists. There are priests whose jobs revolve around disproving "miracles" like Grilled Cheesus Sandwich.

    53. Re:Back at you. by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, that's not true. Anything that Christians don't like would be "sin". Satanism, in the specific discussion of the Internet and cults does consist of sin, but it's more like the deliberate and even ritualistic practice of sin. Everyone sins, but not everyone is a Satanist.

      Of course, there is "Satanism" as defined by the Church and then things like Wicca or even the Anton LaVey's Church of Satan. While certainly some of those would certainly qualify, it's not a 1:1 ratio. The "Do no harm" rule of some neo-pagan groups is much like the Golden Rule, and certainly would not be considered to be satanic. On the other hand, the practice of ritualistic "magick" might be considered satanic, even if no one is talking about Satan, because it purports to gain power from something other than God.

      Bear in mind, the Catholic Church considers paganism in the same way that atheists consider Catholicism. To them, there is only one God and one Adversary. Anything other than heaven or hell is just a fiction. Since there are no other gods than God, worship and prayers to a deity other than God is at best pointless, and at worst, an innovation of Satan who may have a hand in creating false religions in much the same way that record producers synthesize boy bands. The goal of Satan is to get you to not follow the law of God and to accrue power to himself. It probably does not much matter to him if you say "Ave Satana" or "Blessed Be" as long as the result favor's Satan's goals.

      Mind you, not trying to say pagans are actually secret "Satanists". After all, they do not believe in Satan any more than Catholics believe in the Goddess. But from the Church's viewpoint, some of the practices of paganism may coincide with what a Satanist might be expected to do. And if you start from the premise that the Church does, it is logical to believe this. From that standpoint, the Church would ignore the labels that the pagans choose to use for themselves and instead refer to the offending practices as Satanism.

    54. Re:Back at you. by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      I don't worship Satan...

      Satan worships me...

    55. Re:Back at you. by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      What did the dyslexic Satan worshiper do.....

      Sold his soul to Santa....

    56. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the vampirism and canibilism (they profess that they actually turn wine into blood, and bread into body) that is promoted by your friendly neighborhood catholic corporation? With their own country to hide in, and tax evading corporate shelters in every community, they certainly appear to be the richest corporation in the world and people with nothing continue to donate to them daily.

    57. Re:Back at you. by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

      Minor flaw in your logic re: free will. The notion of "free will" runs contrary to the existence of your god. Since the Christian god is omnipotent, and supposedly knows all, including the future, then we have no free will to choose anything, since someone/something already knows what we'll "choose." Therefore we live in a deterministic universe where evil can't exist because evil requires free will to choose a path without anyone, including a god, knowing what you'll choose until you do so. Yet, if he's not omnipotent, he's not god. I know there's a counter-argument to this ... but since the whole notion of god is silly to begin with and unfalsifiable, I'll just stick with the real world I can see and touch.

      --
      DaveyJJ
    58. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a poor refutation of free will. Someone already knowing your choice doesn't influence it. An author has free will when writing a story, even though once it's written it's fixed. Compare Vonnegut's Tralfamadorians in Sirens of Titan: they can see all of time simultaneously. Pretend we were two dimensional and life was like a flip book in that each successive moment exists along the third axis. You can picture how a three-dimensional being could see the entire timeline at once. But the two dimensional beings still experience time the same way as we do in our world.

      Cause and effect is the real refutation of free will. See Twain's "What is Man?" http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-whatisman.htm

    59. Re:Back at you. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yes I know he was the "Ligght Bringer" but for some reasons I don't comprehend he is often "tanslated" as "Light Maker" ... likely another christian conspiracy ^-^
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    60. Re:Back at you. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Man... that's been deprecated years ago. I think it was replaced by SAINT, then sort of petered off after that...

      Linux has gotten pretty old when even SATAN says "get offa my lawn".

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    61. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come again - without the nonsense????

    62. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lies!

      http://orthodoxwiki.org/The_Ladder_of_Divine_Ascent

      see - big continuum - personal choice at the center.

    63. Re:Back at you. by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 1

      I'd like to have whatever you're smoking, thanks.

    64. Re:Back at you. by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hell, the best promotion for Satan appears to be the Catholic church itself.

      Especially since the very concept of satanism or satan-worship is inseparable from the Christian mythos.

      More generally, anything related to satan or shaitan is intrinsically an offshoot of one of the "religions of the book", and ultimately descended from Angra Mainyu who was the antagonist of Ahura Mazhda, whence those interrelated Abrahamic monotheisms derive several of their basic attributes.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    65. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, I'll simplify it / dumb it down: if an author has free will when writing a story, does your reading that story negate the author's will, simply because you're reading a fixed narrative? I submit that it doesn't. I also submit that it wouldn't even if you could switch the order: if you could magically see the future and read the book before it was written, that doesn't affect the author's will.

      You can ignore the flipbook stuff and just read Sirens of Titan, but if not, pretend you are a god in regular 3d, and we are stick figures in a regular 2d flip book (written on transparencies). You (god) did not write the whole flipbook, you just created the first frame. The rest of the frames created themselves instantly from cause and effect. But for the characters in the flipbook, time itself is still "flipping the pages": the characters in the flipbook are living from one frame to the next, even though you can see them all at the same time because you're three-dimensional.

      Your (god's) observation is not what destroys free will. It's the cause-and-effect (even if it's at the level of atoms) that does it. Just read the first part of the What is Man link. Or just think to yourself: if you were born to different parents in a different place in a different time, would you be the same person and make the same choices? Of course not: you are a product of your genetics and environment.

    66. Re:Back at you. by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Fine, I'll simplify it / dumb it down: if an author has free will when writing a story, does your reading that story negate the author's will, simply because you're reading a fixed narrative? I submit that it doesn't.

      No shit. Where your argument turns into a trainwreck is that, in this context, you are NOT an external reader, but rather a character in the narrative. And, as such, you have no free will. Your choices were dictated by the author. Try a more coherent example next time.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    67. Re:Back at you. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, anyway.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    68. Re:Back at you. by ross.w · · Score: 1

      They still remember what happened with the printing press.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    69. Re:Back at you. by RewriteQuran · · Score: 0

      "Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

      --
      Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
    70. Re:Back at you. by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 2

      They appear to be using "the Internet" as a scapegoat

      Except that "they" should be the author of the article.

      According to the article, the Catholic Church hasn't said anything negative about the internet. They just said that the internet has allowed people faster access to occult information. The leap to saying that "internet is evil" was made when the author wrote the title of the article.

      If you look at what the Catholic Church has actually been saying about the internet recently, you'd see an entirely different picture. They are currently making a big push to embrace technology at all levels, and especially telling priests to promote use of the internet for social networking through facebook and twitter.

      http://www.tweetcatholic.com/

      --
      Free unix account: freeshell.org
    71. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post became immediately "tl;dr" following this gem:

      Honestly, one cannot be a satanist unless one is a christian

      See the +5 Interesting comment by tnk1; it is both more elaborate and more helpful than mine.

      Do let me say though: true Christianity is completely opposed to practices that are Satanic. Alas, Catholics themselves adopt certain (numerous, truthfully) practices that were inspired by false worship, and the Bible teaches that if one is not worshipping in spirit and in truth (John 4:24, NWT) then their worship actually goes to Satan instead of to God. Most religions of the world have been steeped in Satanic traditions from their outset. That said, one cannot claim to be a Christian (follower of Christ) while rendering worship to Satan (whom Jesus himself refused to worship - Matthew 4:10).

    72. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much a scapegoat-- they are trying to get people to not look at the net, where their program of childrape is being discussed widely.

      I suggest that you join the discussion.

      Catholic priests rape kids. 5% are accused!

    73. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also think of the children.

    74. Re:Back at you. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      More generally, anything related to satan or shaitan is intrinsically an offshoot of one of the "religions of the book", and ultimately descended from Angra Mainyu who was the antagonist of Ahura Mazhda, whence those interrelated Abrahamic monotheisms derive several of their basic attributes.

      Yesterdays gods are today's devils. 'Twas ever thus.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    75. Re:Back at you. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Yawn.. I get tired of idiots claiming this but never showing any evidence worth more then a rabid conspiracy theory gone bad.

      Do you think your clever? Or just smart?

    76. Re:Back at you. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      You forgot to include the belief that the person who knows what your decision will be also created the universe. Since he/she/it decides what the universe will be like, and also knows what all of the decisions in the future of that universe will be, how can you say that there is also free will?

      God might not influence you at the moment you make a decision, just like an author doesn't rewrite his story every time a person reads it. But he did write it once, even if it was long ago.

    77. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thought it had been renamed to be known as SAINT now,

    78. Re:Back at you. by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      And is now forced to work, for all eternatity, in a toy factory in -20'C conditions.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    79. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are ye a catholic or protestant satanist?
      believing in the devil means you believe in god...
      I believe to be my own dog....

    80. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God didn't have to write the whole book, just the first page. It's more analogous to if we had enough info and computer power to predict the weather with 100% certainty.

    81. Re:Back at you. by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      In later news...

      Vatican says that the Earth is both flat AND the center of the Universe. Reverses yet again decision on excommunication of Galileo, digs up his bones and burns them. And now the sports, over to you Father

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    82. Re:Back at you. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The catholic church has much to fear about the internet... even worse than satanists, it puts their flock in contact with people who know the truth: There are no such things as gods or devils.

      They are losing their means of control.

      Right, because before the internet there were no agnostic or atheist thinkers and writers at all, all you could buy in bookshops was pro-Catholic propaganda.

      In some weird alternate universe, that is.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    83. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People, you do realize that Satanism and Satan worshipping are to totally different things? According to most followers Satanism has actually nothing to do with Satan, other than in name. this confusion comes from people (like in the original post, didn't ofc RTFA) using Satanism as a term for Satan worshipping.
      Also, I don't think people who practice these want to be exorcised themselves, so who actually needs the exorcism?

    84. Re:Back at you. by TheRealGrogan · · Score: 1

      The Internet does expose people to writings that would ordinarily not be published. It exposes writings to people in places where they may not otherwise have access to it. It exposes people to others that they would not otherwise communicate with. It exposes younger people to information and groups or individuals that their parents would try to keep them away from etc. It exposes people to many others who think that that some things are OK, despite them being against catholic values. It is also, for the most part, uncontrolled and uncensored and it's very difficult for them to suppress.

    85. Re:Back at you. by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      In this case the claim is that access to information about Satanism is causing people to become possessed. Most sane people who read the article will probably gloss over that as the mutterings of a raving loon, but they actually believe it. It's equivalent to claiming that reading a book will cause you to go insane, and making a claim like that is, well, crazy.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    86. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > because Christianity makes it's hallmark the separates the continuity of good and evil into a polarity that is then split into autonomous creations

      Wrong. What you are attributing to Christianity is in fact considered an heresy by christians (see bogomils, cathars etc.). Evil is the lack of good for that matter.

    87. Re:Back at you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever actually read the Catholic churches doctrine? They are a cult, pure and simple. The teach blasphemy, "Mary was created without original sin because God would not allow a contaminated vessel to birth the saviour". They have elevated Mary to co equal status with Jesus, no original sin. To name just one of many of their damning and non biblical doctrines.

  2. Internet promotes Christianity by data2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...

    1. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But they want to be the ONLY faith that you can read or talk about.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Informative

      The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...

      You can also research and contact support groups & class action law suits for the many reported cases of abuse that the Catholic Church has been charged with. Ooops, the internet is bad.

    3. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by SteveM · · Score: 1

      Sad but true.

    4. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not protestants. You don't read about religion. That's not your role. You go to church and get information from a priest, who has a greater connection to God through the hierarchy of the Church, which has at it's head God, and right below that the pope, with whom he has conversations daily.

      OK, it's a pre-Vatican-two sort of world-view, but it's historically that of the Catholic church.

    5. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Which is a bad thing, because it causes people to lose faith, as you get to see just how little sense most of the christian dogma makes?

    6. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...

      I should say that is even worse than researching Satanism.

      If I, for one, were to be tied to a bed, whereupon a priest would be led into the room with me in order to sprinkle me with holy water(1) and pray at my side, I would find inhuman strength, curse in all languages I’ve ever encountered and attempt to kill the sanctimonious bastard. And I am not even obsessed.

      (1) The version your perverted mind has just supplied would only make things worse, so whatever.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    7. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by thetagger · · Score: 2

      Considering how badly some protestant sects have raped Christianity, having some control at the clergy level doesn't sound so bad.

      It's not like the Catholics are the Christian fundamentalists, you know.

    8. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Pre-internet, there was a strong biased in favor of the popular in just about all things. Be they religion, hobbies, political views, etc. If something was popular, it was easy to find others who shared the interest - and they would be local and easy to communicate with. I think every village has a church, usually more than one - I've got three that I know of within five minute's walk of my home, and more than I can count right now within twenty minutes walk. But if I wanted to find satanists to talk to, before the internet... no. Not going to happen. I'd have to know one already who could introduce me. Today, it's a few seconds on google to find out anything I want, including the details of all the local sects.

      You can see the same thing in hobbies, political groups... even unusually kinky pornography. It's easier for groups to form from a shared but niche interest than it used to be.

    9. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by funkatron · · Score: 1

      You don't even need to go that far. What the Vatican calls Satanism is a form of Christian belief. Worshipping Satan makes no sense without the myth structure of God, Jesus etc.

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    10. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      So the people aren't allowed to 'read the word of god' and see the blessed words with their own eyes? No wonder organized religion is a joke and people are suckers.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    11. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by ZankerH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Protestants and evangelicals are the Open Source of christianity - everyone gets their revelations from the sky wizard directly and interprets the scripture as they see fit. Catholics are the Microsoft, with the clergy excercising complete control over the minutest details of their faith and telling everyone else what to believe. When the source code is available, it's in obscure languages and obfuscated as can be.

    12. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...

      These other uses of the internet are also bad for them. Promoting Christianity is bad for the Catholic Church, so is being able to research their infamous past. Overall, all information is "bad" unless censored by the Catholic Church.

      If you use either of these two definitions

      Christian: a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ
      Christian: exhibiting kindness or goodness

      Then the Catholic Church leaders are not Christians(I don't speak against the followers who mean well).

      A quick look into the history of the Catholic Church and all you find are mass murders, deceit, scandals, and abuse of power with a very light peppering of good acts. Actually, many of the base teachings are even against the Bible and blasphemous.

      Personally, I'm non-denominational Christian. Most denominations pervert the teachings to their own desires.

    13. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by aaron552 · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like Apple, apart from the source code part

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
    14. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...

      Well, yeah, but according to the RCC, most of those churches, bible groups, etc. are also pathways to hell.

      So, uh..., what's a good Catholic supposed to do about the evil Internet? Oh, wait...
      From TFA,

      The object of seminars was to scrutinise the phenomenon of Satanism with "seriousness and scientific rigour", avoiding a "superficial or sensational approach", he said.

      This was just a late April Fool's Day post, right?

    15. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by aaron552 · · Score: 0

      Worshipping Satan makes no sense

      FTFY

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
    16. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like any religious group is free of fundamentalists, either, or like any of the non-fundamentalists are less deluded; they're just less obnoxious.

    17. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      What the Vatican calls Satanism is a form of Christian belief. Worshipping Satan makes no sense without the myth structure of God, Jesus etc.

      I don't understand god botherers but I understand Satanists even less, they knowingly pick the losing side?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by jhigh · · Score: 1

      Don't get your opinion of and/or information about religion on Slashdot. Slashdotters, as a general rule, are woefully ignorant of relgion.
      Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible. In fact, if they do it the way that the Church recommends, they do more of it and in a more educated and studious manner than anyone else.

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    19. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That sounds more like Apple, apart from the source code part

      Apple is more like scientology - first class marketing campaign, minimum of choices and very very expensive.

    20. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats reason enough to Ban the internet.

    21. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I always figured Slashdotters, as reasonably intelligent people, would be by and large atheists.

    22. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they want to be the ONLY faith that you can read or talk about.

      That is demonstrably false.

      First, as an example, see this article that expresses good will to buddhists on the event of Buddha's birthday, Vesakha.

      Vatican Notes Common Quest for Truth with Buddhism (Zenit):

      "All persons have a natural duty to seek truth, to follow it and freely to live their lives in accordance with it," the prelates affirmed.
      The added that "this human striving for truth offers a fruitful opportunity for the followers of the different religions to encounter one another in depth and to grow in appreciation of the gifts of each."

      Second, see the foundational document on freedom of religion from Vatican II Council: Wikipedia: Dignaitatis Humanae". Its true that the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been a tool of the state from the days of Emperor Constantine and, even up to the middle of the 20th century, had suppressed beliefs that threatened the power of the state and itself. However, the American experiment on freedom of religion demonstrated a different kind of co-existence between church and state. The RC hierarchy resisted that influence until 1960s.

      However, that was then, and this is now.

    23. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree.

      I was once asked by a more religious person, "How does one go about becoming an atheist?"

      "Read the bible," I replied.

    24. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That analogy is so broken I don't even know where to start fixing it. So suffice to say, do your research before posting random bullshit you obviously know nothing about.

    25. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naahh.. the Holy Bible wasn't written in Perl.

    26. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      ... and ask about magnets.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    27. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, I would rank this up. +1 to you, sir.

    28. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me ask you: Why does the church make such a Big Deal about Vatican II? Crap, it was what, thirty years ago.

    29. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      How dare you? The Catholic Church is nothing like Apple! One group follows an infallible leader whose every word is considered gospel.

      The other lot's boss wears a funny hat and lives in Rome.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satanism isn't actually the worship of Satan. It's more like objectivism with shitty music, and they just picked the name Satanism to troll religious folk.

    31. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by vlm · · Score: 2

      makes no sense without the myth structure of God, Jesus etc

      That's the whole point of the quote, self-market with the false appearance of being the only game in town. The opposite of Christianity must be ... following christian-mythos bad guys. Not following something else, or nothing at all. Make it look like the only game in town....

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    32. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Sure, Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible.

      They are just not encouraged to THINK about it. That's the whole point of the Index Libororum Prohibitorum.

    33. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Some branches of Satanism think that Satan is at least as powerful as the God (which is not that far-fetched from the Biblical point of view). Other branches think that personal freedom is far better than slavery, even if their side is destined to lose.

      And last but not least, a lot of Satanists are atheists who simply like to troll Christians.

    34. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      That analogy is so broken I don't even know where to start fixing it. So suffice to say, do your research before posting random bullshit you obviously know nothing about.

      Who would have guessed it?
      Benedict XVI is posting as an AC on slashdot!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    35. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how badly some protestant sects have raped Christianity, having some control at the clergy level doesn't sound so bad.

      Considering how badly some Catholic clergy have raped children, having some control at the clergy level doesn't sound so great.

    36. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Catholic church is the Apple of the religious world - a status they share closely with some practitioners of Islam. They want to control all channels through which you "experience" God. Microsoft was always a lot more democratic in allowing you to bring your own hardware to the show; and allowing folks to create their own sub-religions. The Catholic Church was always about consistency of the message through all channels.

    37. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      A quick look into the history of the Catholic Church and all you find are mass murders, deceit, scandals, and abuse of power with a very light peppering of good acts. Actually, many of the base teachings are even against the Bible and blasphemous.\

      Read the bible, it's full of murders, deceit, scandals and abuse of power. In fact, that pretty much sums up the whole gig.

      Want deceit? Look in the garden of Eden, where God told Adam and Eve to stay dumb ("You shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"). So how are they supposed to recognize evil? How are they supposed to know what';s good?

      And then a bit later God becomes the biggest mass murderer in history with the Flood. Also, animal torturer (what, you think those animals WANTED to drown?) God kills kittens and puppies.

      A prophet gets teased by kids because he's bald, so he sends a bear after them to tear them into pieces. Hey God, nice going there ...

      And of course, the multiple times that god's followers are commanded by god to kill all their enemies, rape their enemies' women, etc.

      The new testament is no better, preaching a politics of exclusion, hate towards LGBT, etc.

      It's the Vatican that is spreading policies that are consistent with Satan, not the Internet.

    38. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by lapagecp · · Score: 1

      Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible NOW. This was far from always true. To me, going to church is like letting someone watch your kids that was in the past a pedophile. Basically what you are saying is that we should all look at the Church today and not hold its past atrocities against it. Well I see plenty wrong with the modern Catholic Church so I guess it's past doesn't really matter to me.

    39. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't understand god botherers but I understand Satanists even less, they knowingly pick the losing side?

      Have you read the Bible? Going by most of the old testament at least, god is a bit of a jerk. Now okay that's because he's a fictional being designed to justify the hebrew people being jerks to others and to explain why bad things also happen to them; god's a jerk, he orders us to kill people and take their lands and he does horrible things to us whenever we disapoint him by doing shellfish or whatever. But if you want to take it all as,er, gospel truth and want to pick a side then the 'not god side' sounds like it can't be worse than the 'god side'. And considering that the Bible is presumably biased towards god, there's presumably room for the other side to be a lot better. Do you understand why people rose up against Gadaffi? Until they did he'd won, right?

    40. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible.

      They are now, but only because the Catholic church finally admitted that it lost a hundred-year-long fight to prevent them from doing so. During that period, people were tortured and burned for suggesting that reading the bible was a good idea for christians. They were branded heretics, and the catholic church argued that anyone other than a priest who read the bible would fail to understand it correctly and would become a heretic (whose soul could only be saved by burning them alive).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    41. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by kvvbassboy · · Score: 1

      This is interesting. Mod parent up.

    42. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 0

      Christians have a tendency to label any occult Satanism, but that's basically taking a bludgeon to a conversation. Wicca, Thelema, Voodoo, Druid, and all the small tribal religions are considered to be Satanism, on the thought that anyone not worshiping God is really worshiping Satan in different disguises.

    43. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say Apple is the biggest control freak in the software world so that makes the Pope the Steve Jobs of religion.

    44. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand god botherers but I understand Satanists even less, they knowingly pick the losing side?

      Even knowing that you are the one losing, you still bother to vote on election day, right? The motivations might be similar.

    45. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Given how much the amrerican evangelicals have fucked up everything - this is a pretty strong argument against Open Source. Just saying... be careful what you are proposing there....

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    46. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      You have to remember that this is a historical aspect of Catholicism. The modern church thinks people can and should think and read. But not everyone on the Church is modern.

    47. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Hehe, that is the weird point, indeed. I am as Atheist as they come, but I am still interested in theology. Compared to catholicism, the weird-ass theology proposed by most "protestant" evangelical churches is so far out, it is "not even heretic", to paraphrase Pauli.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    48. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      "But not everyone on the Church is modern."

      Yup. The Pope, for example.

    49. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by orkysoft · · Score: 1
      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    50. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dispite being non-religious I know from first hand experience from my childhood that reading the bible is one of the first "homeworks" given in a catholic church school, I also know from experience studying early medieval thought that if left open to interpretation the bibile can be pretty ambiguous.

      If you're talking about the renaissance, the crusades and everything, that was the problem of mixing politics and the end of religious/moral debate that the early catholic church promoted inside itself and adopting a single doctrine(Thomism). And as any Protestant scholar can tell you Martin Luther promoted the burning of jewish houses, Calvin also didn't liked them very much either and Henry VIII killed his various wifes mostly because they wouldn't have male children, not as bad I know but still bad.
      Of course I'm leaving aside the witch hunts that were a common practice in the middle renaissance by most christian sects, and the coercive conversion issues that continue to be a problem in the contemporary world(see about Brasil and the conversion/baptism of natives by evangelist sects).

      So the problem in reality is not in the catholic church but in most christian sects, and also in many other religions that make their living by imposing faith on others(I can only think of the possible exception of some forms of buddhism, shinto and taoism).

    51. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most? Religion doesn't make sense at all.

      Christianity is an air castle built from blood bubbles.

    52. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Vatican II is the most obvious point where the Church left ideas which had been entrenched since the middle ages and entered modernity. Vatican II (among other things) established that people have the right to not be Catholics.

      I know that sounds absurd, but think about how different that is from how things were in the middle ages.

    53. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Well, if - and I stress that IF - you are buying into that particular myth - you only can side with the resistance. Which would be Satan. Because siding with God is probably the lowest of low humanity can ever reach, given the questionable morality of the old fart, if you belive the stories. So Satanists got their point, I guess.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    54. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by 605dave · · Score: 2

      You can't be serious. You are actually holding out the catholic church as an example of the clergy being in control. Given recent headlines, you might want to reconsider the wisdom of that statement.

      --
      Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
    55. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Why do you think it's the losing side? I mean, the devil failed to tempt Jesus and Job, but there's nothing in the Bible that says that he was completely defeated. If you take the Bible as truth, then there's nothing that conclusively shows that Satan's side will lose. If you take it as propaganda written by the other side, then there's even less. If you take it as a largely fictional account, then worshiping picking side seems about as sensible as worshiping Sauron or Gandalf (and I'm sure you'd find a lot of people here who'd pick Sauron...).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    56. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 / 2011 = 0.014917951268 => ~1.5% of Catholic history

    57. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy but if you're talking about control of EVERY aspect of your existence, you're talking about the world class megalomaniac motherfuckers of Apple computers.

    58. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..and Oracle is Buddhism, showing us "The noble truth that is suffering".

    59. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by similar_name · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I always found this survey interesting.

    60. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Catholicism has a lot of theological elements they have decided to effectively ignore. The heirachy of angels, limbo, purgatory, posession. They can't actually revise theology because that would conflict with the claim of infallibility - if the church was wrong two hundred years ago, it could be wrong today. Instead they like to just quietly let some medieval ideas fade into obscurity.

    61. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      If they prefer to fight for freedom over slavery even if believe that they'll lose, why not call themselves Spartacists? They could even wear crosses, as Spartacus was crucified. And yes I know that some socialists such as Rosa Luxemburg called themselves Spartacists.

    62. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds more like Apple to me ;-)

    63. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The Catholic church claims to have been founded by Jesus himself, but it's real historical roots can be found in the Council of Nicaea, AD 325. Before then there were hundreds of Christian sects of wildly differing beliefs in constant (sometimes violent) conflict. The Council of Nicaea unified them (mostly) under one common theology and gave state endorsement to the heirachy of bishops, thus consolidating all those diverse groups into one Christian denomination that would become the Roman Catholic Church.

      The date for the claimed birth of Jesus is also a little off. Tradition says it was in 0AD, and the definition of the year, but with so many lost records of the early church the dates are off. It certainly wasn't in 0AD, because the events of the story leading up to the birth include Herod the Great, a puppet-king appointed by Rome, and who died four years earlier.

      Interestingly, the Massacre of the Innocents is only recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, and nowhere else. There are many documents describing other killings ordered by Herod - he was quite the nasty piece of work, even killing his own family to secure his hold in power - but any order for the indiscriminate murder of children is conspicuously absent from contemporary records.

    64. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just ask a choirboy.

    65. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, the Catholic clergy rapes altar boys. A definite improvement...

    66. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "Henry VIII killed his various wifes mostly because they wouldn't have male children, not as bad I know but still bad."

      He only killed two of them. He tried to weasel his way out of marriage using every legal trick in the book first, but weaseling will only get you so far, so he had to have Anne executed on false charges. Catherine Howard even helped him out by actually having an affair - probably due to the incredibly unsexy nature of Henry at that time. Not only was he obese, but had an open sore on his thigh that constantly oozed foul-smelling pus.

    67. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If Satan were destined to lose, why would he even try? He should know more about the prophercies than any of the followers on either side.

    68. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wow,

      I just googled for Satanism and guess what is the first hit?

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/04/03/0252229/Vatican-Warns-That-Internet-Promotes-Satanism

      ^-^ - is that an evil grin?

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    69. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Catholics are more like IBM

    70. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 2

      How does the church recommend bible reading? I was raised as a catholic and was never once encouraged to read the bible in church. I went to church from when I was a baby until I was about 16. And we went every sunday. I remember this, because I always wanted to stay home and watch wwf wrestling and rollergames and never could, except on rare occasions when my mom was sick. My dad stayed home because he knew the deal.

      In the church they did have bibles in the pews but nobody ever used them. The priest would read from the bible once or twice during his sermon, but mostly tell stories that were supposed to have a moral lesson I could have more easily gotten from Aesop. What I definitely DO remember hearing was the priest telling everyone who to vote for in upcoming elections and asking for money (even specifying a dollar amount).

      I didn't go to catholic school. My mother did, and the main thing she remembered were how badly the nuns treated her. So my dad did not allow us to go to catholic school. As a compromise, I was sent to PSR every wednesday night for like 7 or 8 years. Hated every minute of it. There again, no bible reading encouraged. They would give us workbooks which explained the catholic faith. It boiled down to: be a good person, help the community, give us money, don't question what we say. The be-a-good-person thing is fine, but I know many atheists who are good people and help their communities. You don't have to be a churchgoer to be a good person. It seemed to me the simplest thing was to not go to church, be a good person, and be done. And the whole non-questioning thing is scary in any context. I figured this out by the time I was ten.

      Later on I actually did read the bible and learned that the catholic church doesn't even follow their own holy book (take for example 1 Timothy 4:1-4 where celibacy is labeled as a teaching of demons; explains why the priests are raping little children. Or how about comparing the catholic tradition of praying the rosary with Matthew 6:7). Then there are things like transubstantiation, which is complete BS to anyone with common sense. Things like that turn a thinking person off quickly. I shared what I learned with my mother and now she doesn't go to church either. You wanna know the interesting thing? Nobody ever called her to check on her. But they did keep sending her donation envelopes. For years. Very telling.

      Actually reading the bible destroys the catholic faith. That said, you have to lose the confirmation bias and actually pay attention to what is written.

      --
      blah blah blah
    71. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The catholic church argued that anyone other than a priest who read the bible would fail to understand it correctly and would become a heretic (whose soul could only be saved by burning them alive).

      They might actually have been right there about the fact that people who read the bible might be come heretics. Just saying.

    72. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Because, obviously, the cross is a Christian symbol. And since Satanists essentially believe Bible to be correct (albeit misleading) they had to have their own symbol.

      As an atheist I quite respect some philosophical ideas behind Satanism: personal responsibility, freethinking, no emphasis on 'morals', etc. However, I can't care less about rituals and all that worship of Satan.

    73. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by jfengel · · Score: 1

      That may just be you, since Google does some preference matching.

      I used Bing (which I've never used before). The first hit was Wikipedia. The second was ChurchOfSatan.com. The third was religioustolerance.org's Satanism page.

      The first page goes on like that, a mix of objective "about satanism" pages and various satanist churches. Not that it justifies the Vatican's argument: I'd get a similar mix if I searched for quilting or rugby or Catholicism, for that matter.

    74. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2

      They're not protestants. You don't read about religion. That's not your role. You go to church and get information from a priest, who has a greater connection to God through the hierarchy of the Church, which has at it's head God, and right below that the pope, with whom he has conversations daily.

      OK, it's a pre-Vatican-two sort of world-view, but it's historically that of the Catholic church.

      Which is quite odd, when one considers that is EXACTLY what Jesus tried doing away with, including teaching that one's relationship with God was between them and God. And that one's temple is their heart. Interesting, huh?

    75. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to stop suffering you should stop caring about results and only care about not deviating from your chosen process?

    76. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Darth+Hamsy · · Score: 1

      In the words of House: "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people".

    77. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      "Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible.". There are 2 problems with that position.
      1 - Being encouraged to read a book the Church constructed. I don't see a difference between getting the word from the mouth of the priest, or the pen.
      2 - Stipulating that is is a "boon" of some sort, it has nothing to do with virtue on the Church's part. That had more to do with external societal pressures like the Reformation, the Enlightenment. The printing press. The internet.

      Given their druthers, I expect the Church would prefer us under their thumb. They are no more benevolent than any other large institution.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    78. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Just because it's similar doesn't mean that it's good. God isn't ambiguous, nor should He be. Why would God leave the scriptures into every man's personal interpretation? Why would He want His followers to be unsure of what is right or wrong? The Bible as a whole is confusing and can be misinterpreted in many, many ways. I'd trust the Church that organized the New Testament in the first place that directly descends from the original Church Fathers over some preacher below the bible belt that says that he is right and that the other thousands of Protestant denominations are wrong.

      with the clergy excercising complete control over the minutest details of their faith and telling everyone else what to believe

      And why shouldn't they? Faith is not software; you can't change it however you like and expect it to be okay. God doesn't mold himself to fit what you want Him to be. You fit yourself to what God is! Any Church that didn't tell me what to believe and why is no Church at all and I wouldn't trust them with my life.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    79. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by senlis · · Score: 1

      "The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them..." I'm not sure what you are implying with this but note that the Vatican does not think the internet is evil. In this article, all they said is that it facilitates satanism and satanism needs to be paid more attention than it has been. In previous articles here at Slashdot, we have learned the Pope actually approves of the internet in general.

    80. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      Slashdotters, as a general rule, are woefully ignorant of relgion.

      Being disinclined to swallow religious apologia does not equate to ignorance of religion. If anything, it indicates a better understanding of religion than that possessed by most believers.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    81. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Quite a bit of basic dogma does make sense. Don't kill, don't steal, etc.

    82. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Given that IBM is one of the biggest corporate contributors to open source I would have to disagree.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    83. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      But you have to admit, the turtlenecks are quite similar to the collars.

    84. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you did not typo and binged for Santa?

      Anyway my post before was meant as a joke ... no one got it, no problem ;D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    85. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      They are just not encouraged to THINK about it.

      Really?... Start here if you'd like. It illustrates internal debates beginning way back with St. Augustine, and continues today. Google can turn up thousands more.

      Hell, The US Catholic Church can't even decide which translation to use! ...and note the last link, an informal guide to choosing. I'll expand the relevant bit:

      "At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose. This is an important question about which Catholics need to be informed. Some have been given very little help about how to pick a Bible translation, but keeping in mind a few tips will make the decision much easier. There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order. Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations. "

      The only universal recommendation I could Google up is that literal translations are better than dynamic (pre-interpreted to make more readable) translations. So, err, for an organization that you purport to be all big on control, you'd think that they would not only have one translation, but that they would recommend one which was dynamic (that is, pre-interpreted), no?

      As for the Index Libororum Prohibitorum, its purpose has changed dramatically over the years, and for the past and present centuries, holds little if any of what you're representing it as. You may want to actually look up what it really is (link provided for convenience).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    86. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Yup. The Pope, for example.

      You mean the one that had his chief astronomer discuss the positive potential for alien life not too long ago?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    87. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      How does the church recommend bible reading? I was raised as a catholic and was never once encouraged to read the bible in church.

      ...err, really? How long ago was this? I ask because...

      * there are *three* different biblical readings conducted during Mass. The first is usually from the Old Testament, the Second is usually from the New Testament outside the Gospels, and the Gospel Reading, which comes out of one of the first four books of the NT. They're among the first things that happen during Mass.

      * the Missal (a book which lays out how Mass is said over a given year) contains *all* of the biblical readings in advance. You can read ahead or behind all you like, compare them to your own Bible at home, or whichever you like.

      * You cannot avoid reading the bible in Catholic School. I had to spend a class period each day studying that thing (excepting Wednesdays, when we went to Mass instead).

      * Most parishes have bible study groups.

      * Bible study is usually required as part of Catechism these days.

      As for Timothy 4:1-4, err, being a priest is a voluntary thing. If you still feel like serving but want a wife, be a Deacon - problem solved. In either case, giving up something voluntarily as a part of showing discipline, humility, or as a vocation of choice is not exactly the same as saying that the only way one gets to heaven is by giving things up.

      Mathhew 6:7 is correct - but it has bupkis to do with the Rosary (that is, using a counting device for praying while meditating on certain aspects of Jesus' life in intervals - sort of like what one does with a mantra, but with beads and a cross at the end to tell you when you're done). The verse itself needs context, though... in full, it explains the vast difference between blathering out prayers loudly to make others think you're pious, and praying with a focused mind and heart.

      As for the rest, did you or your mother even think to *ask*? It's not like the information is a state secret or anything...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    88. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire bible is online...all 1400 variations with lots of the bits Catholics excised added back in. With pictures and footnotes.

    89. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Judging by the commentary Ive read so far, GP is starting to sound pretty spot-on. It'd be like seeing commentary on Boson Higgs by folks whose entire knowledge of the subject came from the Discovery Channel, friendly bar discussions, and partial exposure to the subject while researching something else. :/

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    90. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      I always found this survey interesting.

      It's pretty strange that 7% of Mormons are unaware of Joseph Smith's religion.

    91. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Jaxoreth · · Score: 1

      Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible.

      They are now, but only because the Catholic church finally admitted that it lost a hundred-year-long fight to prevent them from doing so. During that period, people were tortured and burned for suggesting that reading the bible was a good idea for christians. They were branded heretics, and the catholic church argued that anyone other than a priest who read the bible would fail to understand it correctly and would become a heretic (whose soul could only be saved by burning them alive).

      Kind of like OT III.

      --
      In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
    92. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that make them the Apple of Christianity?

    93. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by paxcoder · · Score: 1

      teaching that one's relationship with God was between them and God.

      Which is evident from this quote of His: "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." --Matthew 18:17
      </sarcasm>

      How's your open source theology looking now?
      Matthew 16:18

    94. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by paxcoder · · Score: 1

      The fact that there are dogmas does not exclude ability to read the Word and other religious works. It only excludes a false notion that one's own theology can be more correct than that of the Church.

      II Peter 1:20. Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

    95. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The internet says that it also promotes christianity, using the same arguments. Within minutes you can research churches, bible groups and also contact them...

      Yeah but that's good, satanism is evil. Remember, good and evil are objective terms ;)

    96. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      this wasn't that long ago, I am in my 30's now.

      I know that they read portions of the bible at mass, but the problem is twofold:
      1) it is a meaningless ritual, much like everything else at mass. There is never any real explanation or teaching happening. A university professor just reading from the textbook could hardly be considered to be teaching. You are talking about the ideal, perhaps, but that certainly wasn't the reality in my experience. There's a reason most "christians" cannot even answer basic bible teachings. Atheists could teach them a thing or two about their bibles. Among this group: catholics.
      2) bible reading is most certainly is not encouraged at home. I belonged to two different parishes, and visited several others (even on vacation mom still dragged us to church). Never once was encouraged to read the bible. In my home, we had a bible but never ever used it, and my mother was pretty devout. It just wasn't something we were ever even encouraged to do.

      as for celibate priests, it certainly is voluntary that a man become a priest. But some men are required to become a priest else the church cannot function. So for those men, they are required to be celibate. Which, according to the bible, is a teaching of demons. They are forbidden to marry. Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 3, men serving as bishops (episkopos) are to have their family in subjection (episkopos is different from the greek word translated as deacon, which is also mentioned in this passage). Mind you, the NT makes no mention of priests so qualifications for a priest are up to the church because this is manmade arrangement. Are bishops allowed to marry? IIRC they are celibate also. This whole thing seems to stem from christians' preoccupation with sex as being bad or defiling. In reality it is a natural desire (if you believe in God, then sex is a God-given desire). Like any other God-given desire, it has to be satisfied in a correct way but it cannot be suppressed or bad things happen (see eating or sleeping). Does this teaching of the church (and demons, according to the bible) have anything to do with predator priests? I'll leave that exercise to the reader.

      Matthew 6 should be viewed in context, absolutely. Its context is just as you indicated. Jesus equates saying the same things over and over again with other forms of unacceptable prayers. THe rosary isn't a counting device for meditation... it's a device that helps you remember which hail mary you are on. This is necessary because you are saying the same thing over and over again, which is exactly the kind of meaningless, ritual, formalistic type of prayer Jesus was talking about in Matthew 6. This has everything to do with the rosary. Saying the rosary isn't a form of meditation. Meditation involves deep thought, not some ritualistic mantra. If you read this passage even from the king james version you'll see this "But when ye pray , use not vain repetitions , as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Sure sounds like the rosary to me.

      Transubstantiation is based on an overly literal reading of the last supper account. If you look at John 6, you'll see that Jesus indicated that his followers would eat his flesh and drink his blood. Some people were offended and left off following him, but this is because they got the wrong meaning. Jesus used this as a test to separate his real followers from the hangers-on. This is exactly the meaning that the Catholic church reads into the last supper, the literal consumption of the body of christ. This in turn conflicts with Acts 15:29. And if you are a christian and believe the bible is God's word, then any conflicts in the bible on the matter of doctrine are really an improper understanding on the part of the reader. This is because the bible teaches God cannot lie, and a contradiction is a lie. If the bible is God's word, then a lie in the bible is God lying. And so on.

      There is nothing to ask the priests. You only get so many mist

      --
      blah blah blah
    97. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Just because it's similar doesn't mean that it's good. God isn't ambiguous, nor should He be. Why would God leave the scriptures into every man's personal interpretation? Why would He want His followers to be unsure of what is right or wrong? The Bible as a whole is confusing and can be misinterpreted in many, many ways. I'd trust the Church that organized the New Testament in the first place that directly descends from the original Church Fathers over some preacher below the bible belt that says that he is right and that the other thousands of Protestant denominations are wrong.

      Yeah, and the Eastern Orthodox claim that your clan broke with them and are the heretics. Everyone claims that only they are favored with their deity's gift of divination. Everyone's personal witch doctors have real mojo, unlike all of those other pretenders.

      And why shouldn't they? Faith is not software; you can't change it however you like and expect it to be okay. God doesn't mold himself to fit what you want Him to be. You fit yourself to what God is! Any Church that didn't tell me what to believe and why is no Church at all and I wouldn't trust them with my life.

      You are an idiot for trusting them in the first place. Everything you mentioned is more parsimoniously explained as a series of parasitic human institutions fighting over and modifying human-written dogma and scripture as they attempt to adapt to the ever changing societies that they leech from. Quit your servile sniveling, grow a spine and get off your knees.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    98. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Don't get your opinion of and/or information about religion on Slashdot. Slashdotters, as a general rule, are woefully ignorant of relgion.

      Amen to that. I have no clue what "relgion" is.

      Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible. In fact, if they do it the way that the Church recommends, they do more of it and in a more educated and studious manner than anyone else.

      GIGO.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    99. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Judging by the commentary Ive read so far, GP is starting to sound pretty spot-on. It'd be like seeing commentary on Boson Higgs by folks whose entire knowledge of the subject came from the Discovery Channel, friendly bar discussions, and partial exposure to the subject while researching something else. :/

      You are right. It takes an ex-Catholic to truly understand how deeply irrational and fucked up the Catholic church and it's twisted theology really is. You read enough encyclicals, pay money to go to conferences with the likes of Keating and Hahn, watch EWTN daily, engage in endless apologetic debates with all takers, and eventually you have a truly rich understanding of Catholicism. And if, by some chance, you wake up and crawl out of that sewer, you'll never make the mistake of falling for that level of bullshit again. And you'll find pleasure in taking apart those same arguments, as you know how they've been constructed, and the historical house of cards that they rest upon.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    100. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Quite a bit of basic dogma does make sense. Don't kill, don't steal, etc.

      Basic human societal norms, not unique to Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. It's all the other odious bits with which non-Christians have a problem.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    101. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      teaching that one's relationship with God was between them and God.

      Which is evident from this quote of His: "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." --Matthew 18:17 </sarcasm>

      How's your open source theology looking now? Matthew 16:18

      Pretty darn good, considering historical documents support it, and Matthew was written when, and by who? Probably not Matthew, since it was written after he died (approx 110-130 - except of course if you ask the church).

      Of course, even if it were written by Matthew, there's the various contradicting portions of the Bible. Like any thing in the Bible, one can easily find some part that says the opposite.

    102. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the church recommend bible reading? I was raised as a catholic and was never once encouraged to read the bible in church. I went to church from when I was a baby until I was about 16. And we went every sunday. I remember this, because I always wanted to stay home and watch wwf wrestling and rollergames and never could, except on rare occasions when my mom was sick. My dad stayed home because he knew the deal.

      Bible 'study' is indeed recommended by the church. However, like the study of just about any other historical text, simply reading it without other supporting information is pretty much guaranteed to miss the entire point. And at worst, likely to create more confusion than it resolves.

      In the church they did have bibles in the pews but nobody ever used them. The priest would read from the bible once or twice during his sermon, but mostly tell stories that were supposed to have a moral lesson I could have more easily gotten from Aesop.

      What you were hearing was the direct reading of bible verses, followed by the priest attempting to explain their meanings in a way that most of his parishioners could relate. Some priests spend much effort explaining the reasoning behind church teaching, historical contemporaries and the biblical texts. Many people find that kind of sermon to be pretty boring listening, but other people love it. In the end, the priest is trying to convey and explain the messages from the bible, so the people are better able to live Christian lives.

      What I definitely DO remember hearing was the priest telling everyone who to vote for in upcoming elections and asking for money (even specifying a dollar amount).

      Bad priest. Not a good representative sample.

      I didn't go to catholic school. My mother did, and the main thing she remembered were how badly the nuns treated her. So my dad did not allow us to go to catholic school.

      Bad school. Again, not a good representative sample.

      As a compromise, I was sent to PSR every wednesday night for like 7 or 8 years. Hated every minute of it. There again, no bible reading encouraged. They would give us workbooks which explained the catholic faith. It boiled down to: be a good person, help the community, give us money, don't question what we say.

      You need to think of pure 'bible study' as a series of advanced courses - far removed from basic catechism classes that are usually handled by volunteers and are full of students that mostly don't want to be there. If you hated every minute of an evening class based on some simple workbooks - which usually spend a small subset of the classes discussing the bible verses that were read during the prior (and/or upcoming) sunday mass - a 'bible study' course would not have faired any better.

      The fact that you've mentioned "Give us money" three times, it seems that is one of the main messages you've taken away - which is very odd considering that this is the last thing that would ever be discussed either in a mainstream catholic schooling environment let alone a 'sunday school'.

      That being said, considering monetary donations are necessary to sustain the viability of any voluntary organisation - including religious ones - I don't see this how this is necessarily a bad thing. No one forces you to donate (well not since the middle ages), they just ask - and if no one asked (and thus no one donated), they'd have to close down the church.

      The be-a-good-person thing is fine, but I know many atheists who are good people and help their communities. You don't have to be a churchgoer to be a good person. It seemed to me the simplest thing was to not go to church, be a good person, and be done. And the whole non-questioning thing is scary in any context. I figured this out by the time I was ten.

      You're right, you don't have to be religious to be a good person. But you appe

    103. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the source code is available, it's in obscure languages and obfuscated as can be.

      So those who were martyred for translating the Bible into the common language were DMCA violators?

    104. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catholics are the Microsoft,.

      Not the best topic for that kind of argument, but surely you mean apple?
      Microsoft is more like the ortodox church.

    105. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      Slashdotters, as a general rule, are woefully ignorant of relgion.

      I beg to differ. In fact, I would even argue that those least religious are that way because they actually took the time to look into the religion that they later decided to shun.

      Christianity owes its existence first to a schism between the Jews believing that Christ was the real messiah (another King David) and those who didn't, then to a schism between the Hellenic Jews (who wanted to allow 'gentils', or anyone of any origin, into the Jewish faith) and the Israelite Jews who wanted only people from a certain ethnic origin to participate. Christianity's evolution from there on was pure politics: the Catholics were formed by the Christian 'hard right' who sought to keep a complete (financial and spiritual) control over their followers, and Protestants promoted a more 'personal' relationship with God. We owe the 'fear factor' elements that dominate many forms of Christianity (Satan, Hell, Limbo) to the Catholics; in reality Satan (aka Lucifer) is hardly present in the bible.

      There is a great series on Christianity's origins - "Corpus Christi" and "l'origine du christianisme" - presented and analysed by leading theologists and historians from all faiths - it exists only in French, unfortunately.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    106. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. Much of religious dogma, which is based on basics makes a lot of sense. If you look at Islam in ~600-700, much of its teachings were revolutionary in terms of social sciences. For example it advocated realistic selflessness through alms (one of five basic pillars of Islam), gave women right for the first time ever, which is something most people don't realize - Islam's way of treating women was very progressive and daring for its times, as it actually gave women some enshrined rights, such as the right to have half of a power of a man testifying in court, meaning they could no longer simply be dismissed by judges as it happened before. Islam also enshrined rights for minorities in its dogma which was very exceptional for its times.

      The main problem is, what was progressive back then is hopelessly conservative now, and large religions tend to have a critical mass of conservative people who do not want to change no matter how far the times go past them. But to claim that religion's basic dogma are "basic human societal norms" is false. Islam had to fight for every inch when it was created, as no one wanted such a progressive set of beliefs in the middle east back then.

      In this regard, Islam is mostly waiting for its Luther to come and clean out the conservative trash and update religion to modern age. I guess all the bloodshed that came with it to Christianity will have to repeat with Islam as well...

    107. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      maybe Liberation theology took off in IBM or would open source be like vatican II

    108. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      >> sprinkle me with holy water
      Is that what were calling it these days?

    109. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a lot like Apple too!

    110. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When aiming for a place in the "really fucking stupid analogy" hall of fame, it's customary here to stick to cars.
      FYI I'd rather have an argument with a Catholic than a fundamentalist protestant believer; the latter are the ones who shoot doctors.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    111. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, what you said reminds me of William Tyndale. He was the first guy to translate the New Testament into English, so that everyone could read it. For his efforts he was garrotted (to death) at the stake, and then burned for good measure.

    112. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that makes atheists the Luddites of Christianity?

    113. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pope is a puppet. It's a big hoax to cover up some nasty stuff.
      People should really look into some of the "evil" actions taken by our popes and the catholic church.
      http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/religion/christianity/biblefraud.shtml
      I'm not saying that I don't believe in God but I believe that we've been fooled through modification of the "original bible" to have us believe what they want to us to believe to suit their twisted-agendas.
      Why would someone want to destroy some of the oldest writings and information about our history as humans, leaving us clueless in the name of God?

    114. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Creedo · · Score: 1

      But to claim that religion's basic dogma are "basic human societal norms" is false.

      People are social animals who tend to organize themselves in similar ways. All of our societies and cultures are built upon that bedrock of biological cooperation. Religion does not generate ethics. It builds upon what is already present. And it is present because of the nature of human interactions. That's why you find low level similarities. The fact that you can point out good elements of a religion in no way supports the overall value or truth of that religion. And it certainly doesn't excuse the irrational flights of fancy that they tend to engage in.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    115. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you cannot just call something FUD and then fail to provide proof. I have provided several references, your response has essentially been to dismiss my experiences (which is fair, because they are just anecdotal) and to take the references I have provided and say "nuh-uh!" That's negation, not debate. If the scriptural references I have provided are misapplied, please feel free to correct them or provide actual scriptural proof that backs up your claims. I suspect you cannot.

      In fact, you are sounding a lot like the religious leaders of Jesus' day, who held that the common man wasn't intelligent enough or well educated enough to understand the oh-so-complex divine nature. Jesus rebuked them for this mentality. In fact, in the book of Acts it was noted that actual christians were just normal men who had not been educated in their rabbinical schools, the parallel to modern day theological institutes (Acts 4:13).

      There are two types of questioning, I will give you that. There is a form of questioning designing to destroy faith and there is a kind intended to strengthen it. If you look at Hebrews 11:1 where faith is defined, you'll see (if you go to the original greek) that faith is based on evidence (a word is used here which basically means "title deed", which equates faith to trusting in a legal document which has demonstrable value). So one should be able to base faith on something, else it is just blind faith. This faith should be based on the bible. When you read it you should question it in the sense that you ask yourself "does this change my understanding?" If the catholic faith cannot stand up to that kind of questioning, it is indeed empty.

      The bible is only hard to understand when you are part of an organization that claims its human leader is infallible. If you make this claim, you can never adjust your understanding because to do so is tantamount to calling the pope fallible, which erodes the very foundation of the catholic church. So you have to figure out how to make archaic beliefs fit. That would be hard indeed.

      Be careful linking people to fundamentalist or evangelical groups. These are often nothing more than political organizations who are exploiting the intellectual laziness of the masses by using their religion to exert total control over them. They are just as guilty as the catholic church.

    116. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by theCoder · · Score: 1

      It is always good to look at the context of any Bible quote:

      15 "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

      Matthew 18:15-17

      Here, the church is being used as a social body to try to encourage a sinner to stop sinning. It has very little to do with the relationship between God and man and more to do with the relationships between people.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    117. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by n-baxley · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. Citation?

    118. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Sorry I didn't get it. I fail.

    119. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by mldi · · Score: 1

      And now, for just $50 to the Catholic Church, we'll cleanse your PC from satanist filth and increase it's speed by up to 150% using the power of Christ!

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    120. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Reams and reams of documentation with full source information is here: Bible Possession Once Banned by the Catholic Church!

    121. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by paxcoder · · Score: 1

      Pretty darn good, considering historical documents support it, and Matthew was written when, and by who? Probably not Matthew, since it was written after he died (approx 110-130 - except of course if you ask the church).

      Perhaps you're not aware of this, but protestants also regard the Bible as word of God. So my argument is valid.
      And for the authorship and origin of Matthew, know that Catholic Church researches these things carefully: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
      I'm not sure what your point is either.

      Of course, even if it were written by Matthew, there's the various contradicting portions of the Bible. Like any thing in the Bible, one can easily find some part that says the opposite.

      I understand how this may seem so to you. The fact is, Bible is a religious document meant to be interpreted by the Church. Yes, Holy Church predates Bible, has written it, and has canonized it.

    122. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by paxcoder · · Score: 1

      I do not know what possibly is more detrimental to the relationship between God and his creation than sin of the creation. So, how does Church have authority to decide on these matters? However, note the verse 18 which you omitted from your "context", I'll refer to this later.
      It is the Church's tradition that is the Word of God (II Thessalonians 2:15), man is not promised to be preserved of heresy, but Church is (Matthew 16:18 - as the fathers of the Church always interpreted the meaning of 'gates of Hell' as 'tongues of heretics'). In fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, it is said explicitly that prophecies (and logically likewise Bible) cannot be privately interpreted (II Peter 1:20). And heresy was always dealt with by councils (Acts 15:6). Notice, again Peter's prominence, as he was "first among apostles" (Matthew 10:2). Once more back to Mt16 to notice he was given the keys of the kingdom of God, that is, authority to rule, also confirmed in (John 21:17). You will notice in the same verse that these give the power to 'bind' and 'loose' - that is, decide what is true (Catholic) teaching and what is false. This is what I said I'd refer to later. The same thing is found in the mentioned verse 18 of the context of my quote. Church has this authority Martin Luthers of this world don't.

    123. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by airdweller · · Score: 0

      "Why would He want His followers to be unsure of what is right or wrong? The Bible as a whole is confusing and can be misinterpreted in many, many ways."
      If god wanted his followers to not be confused, he would've made sure to find a way to make the bible clear and unambiguous and impossible to be misinterpreted.

    124. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Did you miss studying history in school? If you really need a citation for this, then you are shockingly ignorant and should use a search engine before demanding citations for things that are documented in (literally) thousands of history books.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    125. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer, I'm not religious in any way, but I spent quite a bit of time studying theology including the mainstream religions, their beliefs and their texts.

      The bible texts (and most religious texts for that matter) are extremely inconsistent and in many areas contradictory, so they are a poor reference for discrediting a religion that states that those texts cannot always be literally applied. I see quite a few examples of how some religion is 'wrong' ('evil', etc) purely due to quoting some of the 'irregular' segments within their texts.

      I liken it to when I was judo and would try to copy a complicated move without a basic understanding of the underlying body mechanics (ie. how to do some of the simple precursor techniques) only to be unable to make the moves work in application. The same is true in other disciplines such as when trying to apply higher level mathematics without first understanding the building blocks that make it work.

      A religious text like the old testament is not a literal transcription of what took place, and neither is the new testament a complete history of the time. They are simply a selection of writings that bring into perspective some of the fundamental teachings of the church.

      No one is saying that 'bible study' is something that can only be understood by some elite group of theologians, nor does it have to be. It is simply something that must be accompanied by a basic understanding of what you're studying and properly understood within the appropriate suporting framework. If you're a literalist, then you're going to get confused; if you treat it like a precursor to Aesop's Fables, then you'll go in the other direction and never have an issue. The spiritual 'truth' according to the Catholic church lies somewhere in the middle - and it is their job (according to them) to help you find that position.

      I'm not going to refute your interpretation of supplied verses as Google is your friend when it comes to researching those things. But, when dealing with a 'church' or religious body and trying to use the text that they 'created' against them - you always end up with contradictions being overidden by their current teachings. Do you really think that the original Catholic church didn't notice all those 'contradictions' in the original texts, and just left them there so members of the clergy could simply read them and doubt their own faith? No, those same clergymen have always had a 'support network' that they could draw on for clarification. And it would be disengenuous to imply that the majority of the 'clergy' are simply there for some non-spiritual reason.

      And I agree with you about some of the fundamentalist evangelical groups being extremely exploitative. I brought them up because some of things I researched were documents that came from two different 'non-denomination christian churches' - those documents are full of logical fallacies and poorly interpreted scriptural snippets. They had separate documents for each of the relgions that they were attempting to discredit (these 'conversion notes' included targetted arguments for dealing with potential candidates that follow various religions including Islam, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and even atheists, agnostics, etc). They usually start with the assumption that the bible can simply be taken at face value with no further input - and it is true that the majority of it can be interpreted that way without any issues. However, this is akin to FUD as it causes the 'victim' to doubt what they believe - simply because they aren't knowledgable or clever enough to counter the assertions. I've interviewed some of these guys and the best ones seem to truly believe what they're saying and are very good debaters - the average semi-religious church goer would have very little chance without assistance from someone that can explain things.

      Think of it like turning up with a couple of your regular friends to a debate on 'Global Warming' where the other party has spent a huge amount of time and effort r

    126. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      I may also regard the Earth as flat... reality disagrees. The Protestants can believe whatever the heck they want, but there is NO omnipotent, omniscient god who could be as sick and twisted as the one in the Bible... those are fictions created by Man.

      Here's some examples:

      Mala 2:3, Numbers 25:4, Job 28:28, Deut 5:9, Hebrews 12:29, Psalms 78:49, Isaiah 13:9, Exodus 15:3, Exodus 35:2, Psalms 137:8-9, Leviticus 20:13, Hosea 13:16... I could go on all day.

      Those are all contradictory to other sections of the Bible. Those are all obviously the work of deranged people, and not the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving, caring, forgiving God.

      So... how this is related... which set of rules does one pick? That being the case, since "the Churches" (errr... the multiple sects of Chistianity) all seem to interpret the Bible differently (some actually trying to adhere to the sicker, more vile parts - as far as the laws of various lands will allow them), and it's obvious interpretation varies so wildly - and it's still a matter of interpreting HUMAN writing NOT inspired by God (for many sections of the Bible), then that brings us back to the historical knowledge we do have - Jesus tried doing away with the churches - the same types of institutions, that for years, used demon possession and the devil's influence and "witchcraft" as methods of scaring, and/or subjugating and/or killing the populace.

      Do you see how it's relevant now? THEY created, through THEIR interpretations, of a book written ENTIRELY by man, and inspired LARGELY by man (and man's own foibles - including some of the worst parts of human nature), a situation where a fictitious "devil possession" became the excuse for committing atrocities - and now THEY whine about the situation? Really? Isn't that absurd?

    127. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by paxcoder · · Score: 1

      Would you forgive me if I don't answer you? It's just I've been over this so many times it's coming out of my ears. Just... I don't have patience for writing it all over again.

    128. Re:Internet promotes Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was a very well reasoned response.

      I do have to disagree with the notion that the bible is inconsistent, but I think a lot of that comes into how you read into it. Some parts are literal, and some are figurative. Going too far in either direction would certainly cause all kinds of confusion. But I supposed when you are dealing with a book whose original authors are no longer living, has been translated countless times over the millenia, and is one about which people feel VERY strongly... it's really difficult for us to know the exact meaning of all passages. I guess if that level of detail were required, and you assume that the bible is inspired of God, he would have preserved the needed bits.

      As for certain scriptures contradicting church teachings, I do not think that the church deliberately or even maliciously ignored portions of scripture like 1 tim 4. However, it does seem that they allowed thinking contrary to the bible to creep in and guide them and in doing so lost their way.

      But as you said.. it's really up to the individual what to think and believe. Like with anything in life one can only be so certain about a thing, and it's best that way anyhow I guess.

      Thanks for the conversation.

  3. What's wrong with Santa-ism? by thomasdz · · Score: 2

    Santa is an important part of Christmas, he brings gifts and reminds us to go to church and .... ohh SATANism, not SANTAism

    ok, nevermind

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
    1. Re:What's wrong with Santa-ism? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Santa is an important part of Coca-Colaism, not Catholicism - easy to get that wrong.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:What's wrong with Santa-ism? by thomasdz · · Score: 1

      yeah good point... also, he seems to have an appetite for reindeer meat... I'm calling PETA

      --
      Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
  4. Internet promotes everything by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Just shows how tolerant they are of alternative views.

    Sort of reminds me of the radical Muslims today, and how they are killing people over a simple book burning. Tolerant and understanding my ass. Its 'my way or the highway' ( except highway is death ).

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Internet promotes everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just that damn lag. Muslims are a few centuries behind Christians in that regard.

    2. Re:Internet promotes everything by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Shame that you have to go AC to state something that's that obvious. Looking at Christians about 600 years ago, they're pretty much a carbon copy of modern islam, with witch hunts and having women basically as home slaves on one end (compare woman headdress from 600 years ago in catholic heartland of Italy and modern islamic woman headdress), and killing off scientists and seeking political control on other.

      Considering that Islams roots are in the same religion as Christianity, and that the main difference is that they were born 600 years later... yeah.

    3. Re:Internet promotes everything by Sparx139 · · Score: 1

      Shame that you have to go AC to state something that's that obvious. Looking at Christians about 600 years ago, they're pretty much a carbon copy of modern islam, with witch hunts and having women basically as home slaves on one end (compare woman headdress from 600 years ago in catholic heartland of Italy and modern islamic woman headdress), and killing off scientists and seeking political control on other.

      Speaking as a Christian, I wish I could disagree with you, but I'd just be trying to fool myself. Some of the most arrogant, judgemental and hypocritical people I've met are Christians. And the sad thing is, I can't even say that we've ultimately improved - the various molestation charges, the extremely loud stereotypical evangelists that scream at you if you question their logic, and so on.

      The Vatican really just needs to learn it's doing nothing more than making us all look bad

      Tim Minchin's 'Pope Song' ought to sum this up

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    4. Re:Internet promotes everything by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 2

      Given the common roots of Christianity and Islam, you could just as easily be making a case for that half-wit down in Florida being a Satanist. One thing he is not is 'tolerant'.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    5. Re:Internet promotes everything by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      He burned a book, not kill 10 UN staff for trying to help them. While I think the guy in florida is stupid, what should I call the afghans?

    6. Re:Internet promotes everything by Yaur · · Score: 1

      you must realize Christianity "won" in no small part because of the willingness of and ability of the church to be an active participant in politics, violence, and oppression.

    7. Re:Internet promotes everything by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Umm not that i subscribe to his faith, but he is anything but a satanist.

      I happen to support what he did, purely under the idea of his right to free speech, and the right to destroy something you own, if you want to.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    8. Re:Internet promotes everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I support his right to do what he did, but I do not support what he did. There's a subtle difference; He has a right to burn the book, and I have a right to think he's a fucking idiot. I'm not going to ask him to be arrested or fined for burning the book, but I'm sure as hell gonna say he's a intolerant dumb ass that should not have done that. Regardless he is not legally responsible for those deaths, morality is far too subjective and this issue is way too far from black/white so that depends on your own "morals" whether he's morally responsible for the deaths or not..

    9. Re:Internet promotes everything by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      Umm not that i subscribe to his faith, but he is anything but a satanist.

      I happen to support what he did, purely under the idea of his right to free speech, and the right to destroy something you own, if you want to.

      I don't support what he did, I consider him to be in the same boat as neo-nazi's and the KKK, but as with those, their speech must be protected, no matter how wrong they are.

    10. Re:Internet promotes everything by Sparx139 · · Score: 1
      I never denied it, and I'm ashamed by and abhor the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christ. There's no excuse for it.

      If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
      - -Woody Allen

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    11. Re:Internet promotes everything by Yaur · · Score: 1

      mathew 10:34 among a few other is kind of an excuse for it

    12. Re:Internet promotes everything by Sparx139 · · Score: 1
      Sure, if that's how you interpret it. The verse by itself, robbed of context, could be used as a spiritual whitewash by those wanting to justify their own evils.
      Matthew 10:34-37 (for the record, I'm not a fan of KJV and the like, this is the first result on google):

      Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

      I would interpret it as a warning that becoming a Christian is going to cause contention, and will cause problems with other people around you. A rather extreme example of what people can expect as a result of their decision, but not a call to war.
      Of course, you could also go into the Old Testament and the horrible things that happen there, but then I'd need to bring up my view of the bible (essentially a record of Humanity trying to relate to God with various degrees of accuracy, not necessarily being the word of God). That's then likely going to spiral into a full-blown scriptural debate that will make this look on topic

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    13. Re:Internet promotes everything by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Muslims.

  5. Naturally, by aBaldrich · · Score: 3, Interesting
    >He said Pope Benedict XVI believed "wholeheartedly" in the practice of exorcism.

    Well of course, demons are part of the christian cosmology. I think it would be very strange if Benedict did no believe in exorcism. It's like not believing in Jesus's resurrection.

    If anyone is interested in exorcism, I recommend the books of Gabriele Amorth. He's an Italian exorcist, and although his work is not the official doctrine, it's still very interesting to read.

    --
    In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    1. Re:Naturally, by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget: Before he became pope he was the head of what's left of the Inquisition (and I don't mean the Monty Python variety). That should tell you a thing or three.

    2. Re:Naturally, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesting, because I recently saw a video about exorcisms on youtube

    3. Re:Naturally, by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Amorth is the guy in the article quoted blaming the current pope's "sex scandals" (widespread baby rape the pope covered up in his job before pope) on "the antichrist". Not on the pope, not on the baby raping priests, not on their local churches and silent congregation of witnesses, and certainly not on "Jesus".

      If anyone is interested in exorcism, become a priest and rape a baby. You'll get an exorcism on demand, and the special attention of the pope - and go right to heaven!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Naturally, by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In fact his job heading the Inquisition gave him primary responsibility for covering up the church's baby rapers, shuffling them around the world where they could rape again in secrecy.

      That should tell you a thing or three. Like the pope and his church is a fraud.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Naturally, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An excerpt is available here: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/framorth_excerpt2_aug04.asp. Apparently, any form of illness can be interpreted as demonic oppression. What is wrong with these people?, all the progress of the last few hundred years and these guys are still living with a medieval mindset.

    6. Re:Naturally, by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      If anyone is interested in exorcism, become a priest and rape a baby.

      Cite needed. And The Telegraph and Wikipedia don't count.

    7. Re:Naturally, by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's well documented that priests rape babies. It's also well documented in this story and elsewhere that the church blames satan/antichrist instead of the priests for the baby rape, for which the church prescribes exorcism. If you're interested in exorcism, you can get firsthand knowledge of it right in the church.

      Citations aren't needed. Basic logic is all that's required.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Naturally, by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      It's well documented that priests rape babies.

      Oh please. Are you really that gullible that your believe everything the mass media spoon feeds you? (I suspect you're not.)

      the church blames satan/antichrist instead of the priests for the baby rape, for which the church prescribes exorcism.

      Really? My copy of the Catholic Catechism states that "[i]llness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science." (para. 1673) Would you dispute the fact that pedophilia (which is present in all segments of society, BTW) is a mental illness? If not, then I'd say it's safe to say that we both can agree that the Church does not consider exorcism as a way to "cure" priests who are pedophiles. In fact, the Church's position on pedophilia is that "[c]ivil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed."

      Don't believe everything you read in the media. They can't get nuclear science right; do you really think they can get religion right too?

    9. Re:Naturally, by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're simply in denial. The church's admission of many (but far from all) cases of rape, many of which resulted in priests sent elsewhere to cover it up rather than reporting them to the police, is proof for anyone but the deluded. The deluded often believe that the "scandal" is the antichrist, not people's actual moral actions in light of the church covering up baby rapists it helped rape babies.

      The church's actual position on baby rape is to cover it up and put the rapists among some other children to rape them instead. These are the facts. The church's published words are just corporate CYA that it does not actually practice.

      Enough with your handwaving about other failures elsewhere. It's time you accepted that the church is no different from other criminal organizations: they're just a bunch of people making their living off what people believe they're doing and why, regardless of the truth. The church covers up its baby rapists, and regardless of what the mass media is incompetent to do, it's managed to eventually report a little on the church's baby rape and its coverup. Your alignment with the church to attack the messenger despite the facts makes you a part of the coverup. You should see a doctor, not a priest, about your sickness. The priest will just tell you you're among the blessed, and leave you sick, as he has done the rest of his corporation, all the way up through the pope.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Naturally, by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      You're simply in denial. The church's admission of many (but far from all) cases of rape, many of which resulted in priests sent elsewhere to cover it up rather than reporting them to the police, is proof for anyone but the deluded.

      I've not denied anything. The term "baby rape" is nothing more than grandstanding, hyperbole with the sole purpose of stirring up emotions. It's the same as when the vets returning from Vietnam were called "baby killers." To this date, I've yet to see a single reputable source with a substantiated claim of a priest raping a baby.

      I certainly believe the Church went to great pains to cover up child-abusing priests, and that they were caught doing so. But you'd be much more credible if you resisted the temptation to inject hysterics into the issue.

      Your alignment with the church to attack the messenger despite the facts makes you a part of the coverup. You should see a doctor, not a priest, about your sickness.

      I've already posted elsewhere (with cites) that the US Dept. of Education believes 6% to 10% of school-aged children have been molested by teachers or other school employees. Because I work for a school, and I'm Catholic, should I just check myself into a recovery program and skip the doctor referral?

      I'm saddended that logic and reason have seemed to have flown the coop here. I would certainly expect more from the /. crowd.

    11. Re:Naturally, by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Are there circumstances caused by the religion itself that would lead to a priest to having unsupervised access to a baby, or are priest-baby encounters more likely to be opportunistic?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    12. Re:Naturally, by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Hell, mohels perform blowjobs on infants with a freaking audience. Since when does being unsupervised enter into things?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  6. uh... by dr_strang · · Score: 1

    April Fools is over, guys.

    --
    This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
    1. Re:uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The April fools have gone back into hiding for another year. The religious fools, alas, are with us always.

      (Just watched a documentary on BBC yesterday, in which they visited this Phelps wacko in the US. Unbelievable.)

  7. Well fair is fair by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the Catholic church can get away with an apology for the rape of countless young boys and girls on behalf of its members, then please your Holiness, accept this apology on behalf of the internet for our "satanic" practices.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Well fair is fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When can we get an apology from all the non-catholics who have raped countless young boys and girls on behalf of not belonging to the catholic church.
      There will always be good and evil in the world. The founders of catholicism were attempting to mitigate the evil already in existence in the world when they came with Catholicism. Not every catholic always lives up to those ideals. You can't blame the catholic church for these 'rapes' any more than you can blame atheists for the purge of 20 million people during Stalin era

      -And breaking new tonight at 7. Two teenage atheist robbed and latter killed a 98 year old grandmother.

    2. Re:Well fair is fair by ivaldes3 · · Score: 1

      > can get away with an apology for the rape of countless young boys and girls on behalf of its members

      They hardly got away with it with just an apology. They had to pay millions in damages including selling property and closing schools. Further, the vast majority of priests who did not commit any crime and are remarkably beneficial to local communities will always be suspect.

      -- IV

      --
      http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
    3. Re:Well fair is fair by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      If the Catholic church can get away with an apology for the rape of countless young boys and girls on behalf of its members

      The Catholic Church doesn't hold a monopoly on molestation cover-ups.

      In all fairness, we should tackle the Boy Scout molestation cover-up next. Or maybe a discussion of child molestation in the Australian Anglican Church? Or hey, what about the Episcopal Church's child molestation run in the '70s and '80s?

      The hypocrisy here would make me sick if it wasn't so damn funny.

    4. Re:Well fair is fair by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      They hardly admitted to the entire extent of the problem either. I, and almost everyone I know, know someone who has at least been touched inappropriately by a priest. I myself have been physically abused by nuns. You never went to Catholic school, huh?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Well fair is fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you have the church do now? Apologize? It has. Pay millions in damages? It did. Reform its practices? It has. What more do you want?

      Went to Catholic school. I knew and still know at least two dozen priests and nuns. Growing up I was alone with priests and nuns on many occasions over 12 years. I personally never received any physical or sexual abuse or was ever un-comfortable in their presence. There was one un-orthodox (really that's what they called his group) priest in high school that struck me as 'different', probably gay. The rumor among the students was that if you went over to his house be prepared to be propositioned for gay sex. Never thought about it again until the scandal hit.

      I know that the church like everything is a fallible human institution full of sinners including me, always has been always will be. Now what?

      -- IV

    6. Re:Well fair is fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about a .777 extension for filtering purposes?

    7. Re:Well fair is fair by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Well usually when a crime is committed, criminal charges are brought to bear against the offenders. That would be a start.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Well fair is fair by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      All christian religious outfits. I'm quite happy to point the finger at the whole of christendom. Got any links to organized coverups for non-christian orgs?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  8. hahahahehehaeh by Lillebo · · Score: 1

    hehhahehhehaheahehehahahahh hah ahhah ahhahha hahhahahahahhhahahahaha

    1. Re:hahahahehehaeh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking something more along the lines of MWAHAHAHAHAHAH

    2. Re:hahahahehehaeh by Evtim · · Score: 1

      ....and they tell me my jokes are bad!

  9. When will civilization grow up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Organized religion is a means of control. All of them. Muslim wahhabii nutcases and their morality police. Teatards who bleat the tired "America is a Christian nation" lie. Mor(m)ons and California's proposition 8 idiocy.

    And we wonder why society is so fucked up?

    1. Re:When will civilization grow up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With attitudes like that, your post is the perfect example of one reason society is messed up. Religion does far more good than harm. If you want a messed up society look at societies without religion - like the USSR was (although even then, they didn't completely outlaw religions). Nazi Germany was not religious. Hitler said he didn't want to get rid of all religions but he was not friendly to religions.

      I'm not saying I like all religions but your post is so bitter and negative, it's depressing. Besides, let's substitute "organized religion" with government and we could make all governments seem bad: "Governments [are] a means of control. All of them." So? Anarchy works really well doesn't it? There's nothing that promotes rights and freedom like an anarchic society. Control is good. It can certainly be abused but controls keep us free. This applies to organized religions as well.

      Reverting to name calling doesn't help your arguments.

    2. Re:When will civilization grow up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USSR didn't care about the invisible sky daddy. They saw religious organizations and trad unions as ways to organize resistance which is why they clamped down on them.

      Hitler's friendliness to religion doesn't matter. He used it as one of the tools to rally the populace to his demands.

      As far as name calling:
      "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson

      Proclaiming the existence of an overlord of the universe and intimately knowing his/her/its every whim is the height of unintelligible propositions.

    3. Re:When will civilization grow up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just say Atheism caused the Holocaust?

    4. Re:When will civilization grow up? by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Religion does far more good than harm

      Say what? Look at almost EVERY world conflict, every instance of brutality, oppression, or abuse of one group of humans against/by another, and there will likely be some religious underpinning.

    5. Re:When will civilization grow up? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "Religion does far more good then harm" Providing false hope and straight up LYING to people is not a 'good' No human is any closer to knowing god then any other human. No human can say he knows more about God then any other human, period. So for one human to tell you he KNOWS the 'truth' about god is a liar. That is a not a good.

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:When will civilization grow up? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "Nazi Germany was not religious."

      Er,,,, no. Nazi Germany was actually intensely religious. The state still holds the record for the highest-attendance Passion play, courted religious endorsement, proclaimed Christianity as the state religion... even the founding charter of what would be the Nazi party explicitly says as much: "The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession."

      You can have the USSR though.

    7. Re:When will civilization grow up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP sounds like a typical Xistian-Republican apologists doing the revisionist history thing to try and separate the teabaggers form the NAZIs.

      We all know Pat Buchanan back the teabaggers, and we all know he's pro-NAZI, (having actually marched around Duke in NAZI uniform), so where are the actual teabagger and republican values?

  10. They are afraid of an educated populance by earthforce_1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can't control the flow of information and keep the people in check through ignorance like they used to. Much harder to cover up church scandals like pedophile priests with the internet available to a wide population.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:They are afraid of an educated populance by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2

      Hmm, no. Sorry, but there's really no evidence of any kind to support that kind of conclusion. They haven't had the luxury of ignorance or the power to control information for many, many years. All of the people associated with the church at that time are long dead, even before the internet was available to the general population. Also, notice that this comes as a caution, not as a move to ban the internet, or even advice to boycott the internet. They're telling people to beware what they and their children see online, not to deliberately deprive themselves of information.

      Yep, it's pretty obviously clear that they're simply doing their job. They're warning people about issues that conflict with their faith.

      Oh, BTW, mods? What the hell? Insightful? It takes only a moment of critical thought to see that this is devoid of insight. This comment offends me, not as a christian (which makes sense, since I am not one, nor have I ever have been one), but as someone with a brain.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    2. Re:They are afraid of an educated populance by Sprouticus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They haven't had the luxury of ignorance or the power to control information for many, many years"

      Tell that to the people in Africa and South America. There is a reason that the Church is growing in areas of low educaiton and high ignorance and poverty. They share their brand of salvation and afterlife to make people feel better about their shitty lives now.

      Same thing applies to Islam.

      You never grew up in the church, you apparently are not familiar with their tactics. By 'warning' the faithful, they actually intend to scare those who may already be uncomfortable with using the web (older folks, the uneducated or undereducated, etc).

      Make no mistake, this is a direct reaction to the sex scandals.

      Before you start stomping on others for modding something, perhaps you should do a little legwork. I know this is slashdot, but judging the validity of the opinions of others invites a very negative response.

    3. Re:They are afraid of an educated populance by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Tell that to the people in Africa and South America. There is a reason that the Church is growing in areas of low educaiton and high ignorance and poverty.

      Ignoring the glaringly obvious fallacy of affirming the consequent, I could just as easily have specified "the west", or "america", or whatever. It still proves my point.

      You never grew up in the church, you apparently are not familiar with their tactics. By 'warning' the faithful, they actually intend to scare those who may already be uncomfortable with using the web (older folks, the uneducated or undereducated, etc).

      I certainly grant that I did not grow up in the church. I am, however, aware of the effects that it has to those completely devoted to the church. However, consider this: censorship only works when a certain critical mass of people are being denied access to the information. All Christians I know (and I know quite a few) are intelligent and know how to use the internet, can quite easily see the benefits of using the internet, and will not be scared out of using the information by the existence of satanic pages in some corners of the internet. So, how can the church suppress such information, when it'such suppression is only restricted to only to the small number of older folks, or the dangerously uneducated, who are unfamiliar with the internet, and have no-one they trust to tell them that it in't dangerous? Something about that plan seems to suggest that it would be woefully ineffective. Not that there's actually any evidence or reason to support the existence of such a plan.

      I mean, seriously, I've only touched on a couple of reasons why this train of thought is so obviously stupid. Do a little thinking, and I'm confident that you can come up with your own. As another example, what about journalists for actual papers, or news programs, or whatever else? They won't be scared by the internet, and won't hesitate to publish a big scandal about the church. We've seen it happen before!

      Make no mistake, this is a direct reaction to the sex scandals.

      Hmm. I'm presented with two options. I can either assume the existence of a conspiracy effected by the church to censor a long-since surfaced scandal, by suggesting that people beware what they read online, in an attempt to scare the tiny minority of radical christians who are unfamiliar with the internet out of reading about the scandal that's been in several offline news outlets for years, and hope that such censorship will magically spread, or I can make a mistake. Excuse me if I choose to make a mistake. *Rolls eyes*

      Before you start stomping on others for modding something, perhaps you should do a little legwork.

      Well, I was considering doing some legwork, but unfortunately, I'm busy trying to prove that all babies are communists. I figure that I'm more likely to get an affirmative answer for that proposition, than trying to prove something obviously false.

      I know this is slashdot, but judging the validity of the opinions of others invites a very negative response.

      No, judging the validity of opinions of other people whom slashdot likes invites a very negative response. Since the people generally don't like the church too much, their opinions can be bashed to kingdom come without very negative responses. Well, except mine, but I'm not really defending the church here, more just rationality and reason in general. Who would have thought the active champions of such concepts, so paraded and lauded here on slashdot, can be so reviled?

      As far as I'm concerned, this is about as plausible as any other conspiracy theory I've heard. I've seen before so many conspiracy theories debunked here for lack of any supporting evidence, made by fellow slashdotters no less. Why am I suddenly the bad guy here?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    4. Re:They are afraid of an educated populance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Catholic Church trained more literate people than any one up until the Gutenberg press and then they really took off starting with the Gutenberg bible.

    5. Re:They are afraid of an educated populance by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Oh, BTW, mods? What the hell? Insightful? It takes only a moment of critical thought to see that this is devoid of insight. This comment offends me, not as a christian (which makes sense, since I am not one, nor have I ever have been one), but as someone with a brain.

      Insightful because there is no +1 Ironic.

      GP is complaining about an educated populace being the enemy of organised religion whilst misspelling the word populace.

      OK, should have been modded funny, not insightful but he did put the words "religion" and "paedophile" together and that always results in some kind of Karma whoring, I mean watch this get modded informative.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  11. Satan? by AnotherBrian · · Score: 1

    Oh, you're serious?
    Let me laugh even harder.

    1. Re:Satan? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      More of a re-invention. Satan as a character is Jewish in origin, but their view of him is different. Satan to them isn't evil, or opposed to God - he is an agent of God who works to prove the faith of believers, as seen in the case of Job. He doesn't commit evil acts for their own sake, but commits evil so that the faithful may overcome it and thus grow stronger and closes to God in the struggle. Christianity started with that character, but reworked it entirely - turning Satan from the good-natured adversary into the antithesis of God, the Evil to God's Good, a character filled with spite and hate who revels in suffering and is driven to oppose all that is Godly. That is the Satan we have come to know today, perhaps because he is just far more interesting. Various sects and writers fine-tuned the details - transposing elements of pagan gods to give the goatlegs-and-wings image we would all recognise today.

      Milton did some very nice work on Satan - he turned the rather vague and open-to-interpretation mentions in the bible into a coherent narrative of Satan's origin as the fallen angel who thought himself God's equal and was struck down in his pride, thus becoming dedicated to corrupting God's greatest work: Mankind. Milton actually thought he did a bit too well on that, as he was most displeased when people actually started seeing the prince of darkness as a sympathetic character.

    2. Re:Satan? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      More of a re-invention. Satan as a character is Jewish in origin...

      To nit-pick Satan was a role in judaism, not a character. Early versions of the old testament books refer to "satan", but it is a title, "the adversary" and seems to refer to any angel god sent to stand between a person and an act he did not want them to commit. It wasn't until late new testament re-interpretations that Satan came into the stories as a particular angel, one arguable working against god instead of at his command.

    3. Re:Satan? by Tom · · Score: 2

      Having actually read Paradise Lost, I think there's quite a bit more to that. I think Milton picked up on the trend the church had been going on for quite a while already (also see: "Lucifer in the Middle Ages" by Russel, another greatly recommended book on the subject).

      The church had this religion of absolute authority, which literally spells out that your lot is your lot dealt by god and you should accept it. The middle ages were a time we can barely imagine today because the society was extremely rigid - you had your place and that was it. Peasant or king, you didn't have a choice. The question we ask every kid today: "what do you want to do when you grow up?" is a question that never crossed the common medieval mind. The rare exceptions were exactly that: Both rare and exceptions.

      The churches doctrine fit perfectly into that and had no small part in creating this society in the first place.

      But - in every human being there is also a desire for freedom, to be responsible for your own deeds, to cross the borders, to experiment, to fight for something better than what you've been dealt. This desire can be suppressed, but not erradicated - look at the arabic world right now, these people have been oppressed for forever and yet it takes mere weeks for the common man to come out onto the street and say "I want freedom".

      Satan is the church's reaction to that. Look at the image that was created during the middle ages, and only especially well executed by Milton. This figure is the sum total of the freedom-loving human who will disregard the rules of his society, and act according to his own believes, his own set of morals, by what he believes is right and wrong, not by what he is being told. He questions authority and demands his own place in the world, willing to fight even the omnipotent for it. He is the incarnate horror for every autocratic ruler.
      By creating an extreme version of this figure and putting it up as evil incarnate, the church had created two weapons at once: A stick for those who had their small doubts about the society they lived in, to beat them more or less softly back into the herd, and a sword to behead those who crossed the line and dared to demand to determine their own fate.
      And that, I think, is why Milton was a little afraid of his own creation: By explaining the character he came dangerously close to uncovering the construction that went into it. To demonstrating that Satan, even more than god, is a projection of the fears of the christian church. That he is the anti-christ, in being the opposite of the obedient, unquestioning subject the church desired.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Satan? by danaris · · Score: 1

      Have you read Pullman's His Dark Materials? (The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, The Amber Spyglass) I think you'd quite like its subject matter ;-)

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    5. Re:Satan? by Tom · · Score: 1

      No, I haven't thanks for the hint.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  12. Internet also promotes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..all forms of religion, martial arts, fighting, weaponry, pedophilia, racism, communism amongst other things. Internet should be banned!
    Never mind that it also promotes science, education, entertainment, and porn. (yes I deliberately put porn in with the good stuff)

  13. Attendees by Tigger's+Pet · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Organizers of a six-day conference that has brought together more than 60 Catholic clergy as well as doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and youth workers..."

    As well as a constantly changing harem of young boys (and a couple of young girls for those who really want to go against the Catholic creed)

    1. Re:Attendees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats what they mean with 'youth-workers' eh?

  14. cthulhu fhtagn by WizardMarnok · · Score: 2

    ia!

    1. Re:cthulhu fhtagn by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the stars are not right at the moment...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:cthulhu fhtagn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:cthulhu fhtagn by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      VERY cute. Thanks a lot. "He's called the crawling chaos because he can't walk yet"... Snorted my beer at the screen there.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    4. Re:cthulhu fhtagn by Caraig · · Score: 1

      All operators are busy at the moment. Your Call is important to us. Please stay on the line, and Cthulu will be with you shortly. ... VERY shortly.

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
  15. welcoming the enemy? by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

    "Organizers of a six-day conference that has brought together more than 60 Catholic clergy as well as doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and youth workers."

    Am I the only one with such a low opinion of various professions as to think that the Vatican has invited their enemy into their midst?

    1. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a low opinion of doctors?

    2. Re:welcoming the enemy? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This isn't a conference for outsiders. Those doctors-etc are still going to be Catholics, and devout ones too if they are getting an invite. They arn't inviting the enemy into their midst, they are inviting in members of the small intersection of the set of medical professionals and the set of demon-believing Catholics. Probably most of them work at Catholic-run or at least Christian-run schools and hospitals, as those employed anywhere else would be risking their jobs by openly admitting they believe some cases of mental illness are caused by demonic posession.

    3. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Actually, that ain't how it works - what happens is a bit in reverse of what you posted.

      Nowadays, priests have to actually weed out mental and physical illness as a factor, and find secular help for those who are simply ill. Making that diagnosis obviously requires the help of medical and psychiatric professionals, and this conference is likely examining those bits, among other things.

      Occam's Razor kicks in at this point, yanno?

      (not talking about you, mind - but...)
      Of course, that tends to deprive the Telegraph (and a sizable portion of Slashdot) the opportunity to indulge prejudices, from the looks of it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think something important you are missing is that most of the Catholic church's "exorcism" training and doctrine is mostly about identifying mental illnesses and how to find a mentally ill person the help he/she needs. Even by the Catholic church's count, demonic possession is almost nonexistent. Most of the time someone calls a priest for an exorcism, it just ends with the priest arranging psychiatric care for the "possessed".

    5. Re:welcoming the enemy? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It is true that even the Catholic church admits that the vast majority of apparent posessions are just plain mental illness - but they do still claim that a small but non-zero percentage of them are genuine demonic effects. I gather the church regards the whole thing as a bit embarassing - they can't be seen to change their doctrine if they can possibly avoid it, so they have to continue to claim that demonic posession is a real thing, but at same time they know this view is outdated.

      I can't imagine they would invite complete nonbelievers to a conference like this, though. Why invite someone to a conference who believes the issue being discussed is nothing but an ancient superstition? What they want really are professionals who believe that demonic posession is real, and does happen... and yet every single case of it they ever heard of is actually just mental illness. They just have to be willing to entertain the possibility that maybe the next one will be the real thing.

    6. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If it were non-priest (and especially non devout Catholics, or devout anything) psychologists doing the weeding out, then that process might be credible.

      Having Catholic priests decide who is "actually possessed" is like having the mice decide what is "actually cheese". Peanut butter qualifies when "satan" is behind it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Not quite...

      Some bits may be in order: Given the severe shortage of priests in many areas, and couple that with the average priest's schedule: doing confessions, ministering to the sick, visiting prisoners, administering their local parish staff (and those of parishes w/o a resident priest), attending meetings of numerous church groups (Right To Life, Knights of Columbus, etc), counseling/presiding in seminars and retreats, preparing (this year) for a large and impending change in how Mass is done (at least for the English-speaking Catholics)... oh, and actually saying Mass multiple times a week. Add to all of that the fact that the average age of these guys *at ordination* is 35 (retirement age is somewhere around 70, but that's been pushed up, IIRC).

      Not exactly seeing them seizing an opportunity to fill an already cramped calendar...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Which is why there's not many exorcisms, as these priests admit. If they weren't so "busy" (like the time many spend doing politics instead of working for the poor), they'd have more time to cook up more exorcisms.

      Your ramble entirely misses the obvious point. Priests aren't qualified to determine whether people are crazy. Psychologists and psychiatrists are. You've got them working in the wrong order. Putting the mice in charge of deciding what's cheese; putting priests in charge of deciding what's possession.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Vatican _is_ the enemy, you silly anus.

    10. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Priests aren't qualified to determine whether people are crazy. Psychologists and psychiatrists are.

      This is most likely why they're working with the secular professionals to get up some sort of baseline determination - especially since most of the folks asking for an exorcism are (wait for it...) poor, and most likely don't have sufficient insurance (if any) to get this sort of thing checked out.

      You forget - the order is determined by the victim and/or their families; it's not like the priests go around asking.

      Personally, I see it as a good thing, since at least this way there can be an avenue where actual mental illnesses can be at least somewhat screened and referred to the correct secular professional.

      (...as for the "doing politics" strawman, please... since when has stating one's position, or official church position on a moral issue suddenly "politics"?)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

      I was actually suggesting that many psychologists and psychiatrists are de facto agents of Satan - doubly so if they are religious as well.

      I really distrust those professions, even more than Catholic priests.

    12. Re:welcoming the enemy? by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

      While there are a few minimally competent psychiatrists and psychologists (the relative infancy and complexity of the field preventing great competence), I think you give them far too much credit.

      In effect, if not in intent, the impact of these fields on society could accurately be described as Satanic (in a metaphorical sense). It is true that Catholic priests are ignoramuses who are especially dangerous when they believe they are knowledgeable, but it is even more true of psychologists and psychiatrists who find unwarranted credibility among the general public.

  16. But but by alostpacket · · Score: 1

    just look at the satanism going on here:

    >=)

    --
    PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
  17. idle story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whats this story doing in 'tech' ?

  18. Internet promotes informed knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the religions and governmental systems are worried the interwebs are allowing more informed information than the propaganda commonly controlled by the powers in charge. People are finding more in common with each other via the internet channels than the policy fed by old media and controlled release policy run by Big Power Inc.

  19. This is why I support Chaotic Net Neutrality by cognoscentus · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  20. Stop laughing, start confronting. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While most of Slashdot it is laughing I think we should be taking this as a serious issue and find ways to confront it. We may think the religion is full of ignorants, but they can still have geek kids who get abused and treated badly because they want to play D&D or play some video games. For those who remember Columbine and how geeks got treated, keep that mentality but instead of it just being a small part of your life it becomes your entire life. Your family, friends and everyone you know is calling you a devil worshipper because you want to tell and story and roll some dice.

    Stop laughing and start looking for the tears. These people are ruining children's lives and we should be supporting them not laughing at their abusers from a high horse.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by aaron552 · · Score: 1

      Wait... the Catholic Church still thinks that D&D and video games are satanic?
      *grabs torch and pitchfork*
      BURN THE WITCHES!

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
    2. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion is not "full of ignorants" it is ignorance of itself, created to oppress mankind.

    3. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by outsider007 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Kids don't go columbine because their parents take away their 20 sided dice. Honestly, kids who are indoctrinated into christianity are better off. They get a support system, a proscription against suicide, a warm fuzzy feeling upon the death of a loved one, and all for the small price of being able to think rationally. That's really a bargain when you think about it.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    4. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People aren't going to be changed by anyone, if they want to change, they must do it themselves.

      If you want to change the world become a cop, doctor, cancer researcher, kindergarten teacher, honest politician etc. If all that's left inside you is nothing but hurt and thirst for vengeance, see Dexter, don't mess other peoples lives, just those that deserve it.

      As for the religious nuts ... well, be happy, one day soon, you'll manage to start another crusade, or jihad or whatever, when it ends, the survivors will most likely be the ones burning you at the stake not the other way around.

    5. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by hedwards · · Score: 2

      To be honest, the Catholic Church has been hemorrhaging members in the US for a long time, and this sort of nonsense is a large part of why. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that the Pope is off his rocker on many issues, and as the head of the organization, that's bad.

      Considering the amount of blame that's being heaped on the people that have been sexually abused by other Catholics, it's no wonder that the exodus isn't restricted to those that have themselves been abused. It's just really hard to take a religion seriously that uses its moral authority to use a sex abuse scandal to further its own homophobic agenda.

    6. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by halivar · · Score: 1

      I think they're a lot less stigmatization now than, say, in the 80's (or at least I see less of it). As a part of a mainline southern protestant church, the worst I've received when church people see my vast D&D collection is the occasional roll of the eyes (and most of that is from girls who think it's nerdy, not satanic). Mostly what I get is people flipping through the books and asking if they can play.

    7. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      These people are ruining children's lives and we should be supporting them not laughing at their abusers from a high horse.

      I'm rather confused by your statement, but I'll take a stab at it anyways. I hold a lifetime geek card, have a background in academic research, I spend every day with young adults (about 2600 of them), I was raised a Catholic, and I'm not a pedophile. I really don't need your support, and neither do the vast majority of Catholics. I think you've been brainwashed by the rampant hypocrisy and yellow journalism here and elsewhere. You probably need to just take a break from /., The Telegraph, whatever. Maybe apply a rational thought process (which I would expect from any self-proclaimed geek-card carrier) to the entire "issue" and come up with your own conclusions. I think you'll find that the "issue" is vastly overblown by the media intent on selling papers.

    8. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely!

      And there should be - if there isn't already one that I am not aware of - a website/organization to centralize and point a massive finger at everything that is wrong with religion, to make for efficient argumentation against those brainwashers & brainwashees.

      Kind of an EFF or WikiLeaks specifically on that matter, if you will...

    9. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by pongo000 · · Score: 2

      To be honest, the Catholic Church has been hemorrhaging members in the US for a long time

      Thanks for contributing to the mass hypocrisy and gross misrepresentation of facts that seems to plague this discussion. I don't mean to have facts get in the way of your diatribe, but in reality the percentage of Catholics in the US has remained steady over the past 38 years (at about 25%). Since the population of the US continues to grow, this means (follow me here) that the number of Catholics in the US continues to grow as well. I'd hardly call that "hemorrhaging." For an example of "hemorrhaging," check out the Protestant numbers.

    10. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're retarded and all, but Columbine had nothing what-so-fucking-ever to do with "mistreated geeks." It had to do with a sociopath and his manic-depressive hanger-on.

    11. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Stop laughing and start looking for the tears. These people are ruining children's lives and we should be supporting them not laughing at their abusers from a high horse.

      I'm a Catholic, and I've never heard of things like D&D or Harry Potter being "prohibited". You're mashing the Catholic Church together with fundamentalist Christians (you know, the "KJV only", "Creationism" kind). I've actually read quotes before (though I cannot link to them for not knowing where they are on the internet) from people in the Catholic Church (not laymen) who approve of things like that so long as they teach good morals. I, as a practicing Catholic, haven't been decieved into "satanism" or "witchcraft" or any of that nonsense that fundamentalists spout all the time. The Catholic Church, if you don't mash them together with those fundamentalists, is actually quite reasonable (simultaneous orgasms, for example, are encouraged as well as sex after you're not able to have kids; can you believe that?).

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    12. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by The+O+Rly+Factor · · Score: 1

      They most certainly do.

      I went to a Catholic elementary school in the mid 90s. Myself and a couple of friends had to serve several weeks of after school detention for playing Magic: The Gathering during lunchtime. An eight year old third grader was suspended for a day for having pokemon cards.

    13. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      Those kids that are 'abused' just need to stand up for themselves and growl a pair. Not the 'Muder everyone' kind, but the kind so that they're able to look their detractors in the face and tell them off. Even though I'm not a believer I will quote the Good Book here: "God helps those who help themselves."

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    14. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by Caraig · · Score: 1

      They also, if they happen to find that they're of a nontraditional gender role -- i.e. gay or just feminine or (heavens help them) transexual -- are stuck in a horrible cycle of recrimination, guilt, shunning, 'repatriation therapy,' depression, despair, and for too many, suicide. Yeah, a real bargain. Welcome to Omelas.

      For those who 'fit in,' or are malleable enough to be molded to fit in, sure, it works for them. And there is a considerable support network. (At least, for most American Protestant denominations, if you're the right colored skin and of the right economic class.) But if you are off their beam? If you don't match their ideals? Consider that.

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    15. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      Right, well for gay kids it might make sense to reject their religious indoctrination. Bet then again it might not. I'm not sure that the depression/suicide rate among church going gay kids is higher than among non-church going ones. The thing about being religious is that unlike being gay, it's a choice.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    16. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rational thought? Sure. Here it goes:

      When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

      But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

      Can't get more rational than that. RIP George!

    17. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by Tom · · Score: 1

      These people are ruining children's lives and we should be supporting them not laughing at their abusers from a high horse.

      Childrens? You are right, but you only see the tip of the iceberg. These people literally have the job to ruin everyone. They call it "salvation", but their own book betrays them. Christianity is a death cult and they want the end of the world, because the cornerstone of their entire belief system is that this world is evil and their "afterlife" is what it is really about.

      It takes a while to wrap your head around that, but christians do not share this world with us in any meaningful sense. For them, it's a passing fad and the real game is afterwards. This is just the qualifications round. In this sense, christianity - for the true believer - is a personality disorder.

      Frankly, we are all very lucky there are so few real christians, and most of them pay lip service and pick a few concepts that don't violate common sense too badly and call that a belief.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    18. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      I disagree that thinking rationally and being Christian are mutually exclusive. Such a viewpoint to my mind is rather incomplete.

      Just as atheists disagree when Christians generalize and lump them all into the same boat, I object when Christians are generalized about. Some of us have done the research. We have looked into the documents, the history, the archeology the meanings of the greek and hebrew words, the context(political and social) of the bible, even the History of the early church. When you do this, most people I know come to very different conclusions then both atheists and I am sad to say a lot of modern so called Christians. Things look very different when you do the actual research yourself, rather than trust arbitrary people, be it Dawkins, or the Pope.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    19. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't somebody think of the children!?!

    20. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      Well, reading the testimony of people who lived 2000+ years ago and had no science to explain the things they didn't understand, isn't really research. Unlike those people we have the benefit of an understanding of natural selection. We know how we got here. If we continue to believe in an afterlife it's only because it's comforting. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it's not the rational conclusion.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    21. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      That depends. I do think get a lot of knee jerk reaction from atheists, "it is just testimony" which they seem to think gives them the right to simply dismiss it - their problem no mine. The point is, the Bible was not written to explain the "how" so much as the "why." No, it isn't science(or at least physical science) unless you count it as mental science, and I have and will never claim it is. "The rational conclusion" you have come to I feel is rather incomplete. It like most conclusions is based on a set of assumptions (which may even be good), but are never-the-less assumptions.. We rationally conclude a lot of historical things based on less evidence. For example, is our picture of Hannibal correct? Did he exist at all? Yet any rational historian will probably conclude "yes and yes." It is certainly not as clear cut as you portray. Are you prepared to throw out of your history books Hannibal in order to throw out Jesus?

      The rational conclusion here is a lot of research deeper than you think. And those people back then understood much more than you give them credit for.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    22. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      It's not irrational to believe that Jesus existed. It's irrational to believe that after we die we continue to live forever with our dead family members (and sometimes pets). Or 72 virgins, it doesn't matter the scenario. These beliefs are comforting but rational people eventually outgrow them.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    23. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      You make a lot of statements but you offer little reasoning.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    24. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      Look, I started this thread by defending christianity. I think it's a good religion. Then you took issue with the fact that I called it irrational. I'm pretty sure Jesus would agree with me. Faith is irrational by definition so get over it. .

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    25. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Yet I do not agree with you. Faith does not need to be irrational. Fine, you defend Christianity, I have no problem with that. The point is you have made an assertion with no reasoning given, references, citations, etc. My viewpoint is, if you can't back up your statement why make it? I think it is very rational to trust testimony under certain conditions. Judges and juries do it all the time. Sure they aren't always correct, but they often are. I see no one has disproved that "we die we continue to live forever with our dead family members" as you put it - not that I am asking you to do that. The only evidence either way in this situation is testimony. So I have to ask why you consider it irrational?

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    26. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why I bother. Maybe you'd like to argue that water isn't wet.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    27. Re:Stop laughing, start confronting. by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      In other words, what you have is an assumption. Ok. Don't bother.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
  21. SlashTweaks by cpscotti · · Score: 1

    I wish SlashTeaks had lived long enough for me to edit the title into:
    "Vatican Warns That Internets Promotes Satanism"

  22. Sex scandal = Satan exists within Catholic Church by infolation · · Score: 2

    If the Catholic church can get away with an apology for the rape of countless young boys and girls on behalf of its members, then please your Holiness, accept this apology on behalf of the internet for our "satanic" practices.

    This is exactly what the article claims is the proof of their assertation.

    The Vatican's chief exorcist claimed last year that the Devil lurked in the Vatican...

    ...He claimed that the sex abuse scandals which have engulfed the Church... ...were proof that the anti-Christ was waging a war against the Holy See.

  23. Satan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I always thought Satan was a Christian invention.

  24. The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by Theovon · · Score: 1

    It's too bad they didn't or else they wouldn't have a mixed-up impression of what Satanism is. It's basically hedonistic humanism with a license to destroy those who get in the way of your fun. This is doesn't necessarily make it BETTER, but it's important to realize that most (many? some?) Satanists don't really believe in Satan as a real being, although they may believe in Satan as an archetype or metaphor. (BTW, Shatan was a god in the ancient Hebrew pantheon (perhaps equivalent to Loki). You knew that ancient Hebrew religion was really polytheistic and it was later pasted over and reinterpreted as montheistic, didn't you?)

    My point is that it pays to understand what you're up against, and I often think that Christians use "Satanism" incorrectly. They're battling a strawman.

    1. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by imroy · · Score: 1

      You knew that ancient Hebrew religion was really polytheistic and it was later pasted over and reinterpreted as monotheistic, didn't you?

      I do now, thanks to two videos on Youtube by Evid3nc3:

      Just don't be put off by his recent reconversion :)

    2. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      (BTW, Shatan was a god in the ancient Hebrew pantheon (perhaps equivalent to Loki). You knew that ancient Hebrew religion was really polytheistic and it was later pasted over and reinterpreted as montheistic, didn't you?)

      First, minor nitpick, it's Satan, not Shatan. And actually, in Job it's always Ha-Satan, so Satan is a normal noun, not a name (the prefix ha means "the"). It's usually translated as "the adversary" or "the accuser".

      Second, I've always heard of Satan being considered an angel or some other sort of divine being, but not a "real" god. Looking at the Hebrew, though, it says Satan is one of b'nei ha-elohim, which is either "sons of the gods" or "sons of God". Someone much more knowledgeable than I would have to comment on that one.

      As for the polytheistic pantheon, it is a bit strange. The Torah seems to take for granted that the gods of the other nations exist, considering how often the Hebrew God does nasty things to them, but they're always considered inferior beings and not the supreme deity that should be worshiped. It's unfortunate that there was so much common knowledge that the Torah assumed everyone already knew, but that isn't quite so common anymore.

    3. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by aaron552 · · Score: 1

      They've set up enough of their own. It's good to see them getting a taste of it themselves.

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
    4. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      "Shaitan" is the Islamic pronunciation of that name (Don't have the Arabic characters handy - so that's the English equivalent).

      It's usually translated as "the adversary" or "the accuser".

      Yep. Still means the same thing, to an extent.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Second, I've always heard of Satan being considered an angel or some other sort of divine being, but not a "real" god. Looking at the Hebrew, though, it says Satan is one of b'nei ha-elohim, which is either "sons of the gods" or "sons of God". Someone much more knowledgeable than I would have to comment on that one.

      Pretty much correct; it is not entirely clear what the original meaning of the word "elohim" actually was, and so it is hard to say whether it should be read as a plural noun or singular.

      As for the polytheistic pantheon, it is a bit strange. The Torah seems to take for granted that the gods of the other nations exist, considering how often the Hebrew God does nasty things to them, but they're always considered inferior beings and not the supreme deity that should be worshiped. It's unfortunate that there was so much common knowledge that the Torah assumed everyone already knew, but that isn't quite so common anymore.

      The idea that there is only one God appears to have been injected later in the history of the Torah; it prior to that concept, there seems to have been a mountain god, a water god, a thunder god, etc. For reasons that are lost to history (but perhaps not entirely, as there is some indication that there were political reasons for this in the book of Kings) these various gods were combined into a single God.

      As for lost knowledge, the Tanach (Torah + Prophets + Writings -- what Christians call the "old testament") makes numerous references to books that have been lost to history, perhaps as a result of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (the library there was burned). How the books that are currently represented in the bible survived is a bit mysterious. Stranger still is the existence of books from the era which were included in the western Christian "old testament" but not the tanach, and books that were included in eastern Christian bibles that are not included anywhere else. It must have been a pretty chaotic time.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's basically hedonistic humanism with a license to destroy those who get in the way of your fun.

      That's LaVeyan satanism. There's other kinds, although it's true that it's pretty much never about black clothes and white makeup, or sacrificing black chickens on graveyards at midnight, or things like that. That sort of thing is for children who want to scare their parents.

      Your point still stands, of course, although I'd reject the notion that the catholic church don't understand this. They do, and they paint an incorrect picture not out of incompetence and ignorance but rather for propaganda reasons.

    7. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a lot like the behavior of certain Wall Street bankers.

    8. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Well, the olf polytheism is made pretty clear by the first commandment - "You shall have no other gods beside me". Telling that it doesn't state "there ARE no other gods beside me". There are, but stay the heck away from them.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    9. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by Arker · · Score: 1

      First, minor nitpick, it's Satan, not Shatan. And actually, in Job it's always Ha-Satan, so Satan is a normal noun, not a name (the prefix ha means "the"). It's usually translated as "the adversary" or "the accuser".

      You are correct in terms of modern hebrew pronunciation, but the mistake is an understandable one. The word is spelled shin-tet-nun. Today the shin often gets a special dot to indicate it is pronounced more like 's' (like the letter samekh, not like the letter shin is usually pronounced) however this is a relatively recent innovation and even today not always used. Sounds within a language do shift over time, and the older pronunciation would not have been an 's' but something closer to the 'sh' - actually it may have even been a welsh 'll' sound in ancient hebrew. In modern Arabic, a very closely related language, it does use the 'sh' sound as well.

      Second, I've always heard of Satan being considered an angel or some other sort of divine being, but not a "real" god. Looking at the Hebrew, though, it says Satan is one of b'nei ha-elohim, which is either "sons of the gods" or "sons of God". Someone much more knowledgeable than I would have to comment on that one.

      The Torah is the result of a burst of work after monotheistic judaÃsm rose to prominence in Jerusalem, which occured after IsraÃl was conquered. Monotheist scribes compiled and heavily editted documents from pre-monotheistic times in addition to adding new material. References to elohim ("the gods") are relics of the pre-monotheist judaÃsm. Both Jews and IsraÃlis in older days had basically the same mythology and beliefs as their semitic neighbors throughout the region. El 'god' was a common title, applied to numerous gods both large and small all around the region, and elohim originally meant something very much like 'pantheon' - the gods as a collective group. El still occurs in a few places in the tanakh with the older meaning intact, e.g. Malachi 2:11 ("Judah has married the daughter of a strange El.)

      Once you understand this, the 'strange' handling of other gods in the Torah isn't so strange. It's the result of a shift in belief over a long period of time. Originally all the gods (elohim) were real and respected. But one of those gods was identified as paramount, the king of the gods, and which god that was could vary depending on where you were. For the Jews of Jerusalem, of course, it was YHVH, or El Shaddai (the meaning of Shaddai is subject to debate and probably the interpretation changed several times, it is conventionally translated 'God Almighty.') In other nearby areas another El might be supreme, but regardless of which one it was, that El was empowered to speak for and as 'elohim' - the gods or pantheon as a corporate entity, just as human kings would speak for and as their entire tribe.

      After their powerful northern cousins, the kingdom of IsraÃl, were conquered by the Assyrians, the sages of the southern kingdom explained the misfortune based on the pluralism of the northern religion, and they focused more and more on insisting that ONLY 'our god' should be honoured and worshipped. Even minor shrines and offerings to the numerous other gods became more and more interpreted as disrespect to 'our god' and his 'jealous' nature was emphasised more and more. It probably only took a few generations for this impulse to harden to the point that it becomes recognisably monotheistic - the other gods finally denied as gods entirely, demoted to demons and idols, and prohibited lest the fate of IsraÃl befall Judah as well. Which happened anyway, of course, but that is another story.

      P.S. Slashdot mangles text abominably, and I cant be arsed to work around it.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    10. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your arrogance is a bit much. I'm not a catholic and I don't share their beliefs, but you shouldn't assume that you know more about theology than the pope. Some modern popes have been serious scholars of theology. Many historical popes were terrible human beings, but John Paul II, for example, can't be described that way. He earned two doctorates and spoke 12 languages, so it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that he was grossly incompetent. Further, he has a significant claim to being responsible for the end of communism in Europe.

      You should feel free to argue against Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general, but keep in mind that arguments similar to "Christianity is stupid, so all Christians are stupid, so they're always wrong, so I'm always right." aren't logically sound.

      Is calm, rational discourse too tall of an order for /.?

    11. Re:The Vatican should wikipedia "Satanism"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shall have no other gods beside me". Telling that it doesn't state "there ARE no other gods beside me". There are, but stay the heck away from them.

      Actually usually stated as "You shall have no other gods before me" which seems to imply that he's first in precedence, not the only one to be worshipped at all - it does then go on to forbid idols specifically but that does seem to leave the way open for other non-idol gods.

  25. religious freedom by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 1

    surely satanism is as valid a religion as any other, and a downright peaceloving one if you compare bodycount with some of the mainstream ones.

    1. Re:religious freedom by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Confusingly, there are several very different religions that bear the label of 'satanism.' There are some that go back centuries, often new forms of what were once nature-worship pagan cults. Some are mishmashes of imagery, often taking the symbols of Satan but not believing in the character as an actual being - rather as a representation of human nature. And then there are the ones the others look down upon, the ones born more recently of cultural rebellion and the appeal of the forbidden, which get their religion more from horror movies than ancient texts.

  26. Not hard to believe... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    Not hard to believe, this explains the Internet Explorer market share.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  27. definitely not god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lolztionary: satanism, a belief defined by Judeo-Christianism.

  28. Gutenberg by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hrm, where have we heard this one before?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Gutenberg by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Darn you're fast.

      --
      Gently reply
    2. Re:Gutenberg by tessellated · · Score: 1

      "News for nerds, stuff that matters."

      --
      'When the Going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro.' - Hunter S. Thompson
    3. Re:Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember this being the plot of any Police Academy movie? You're talking about the same Gutenberg yeah?

    4. Re:Gutenberg by benjonson · · Score: 1

      Warning, the above tinyurl in the posters sig sends you to http://www.tkqlhce.com/ a site banned by the hosts file I get from http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/ .

      --
      =-+
    5. Re:Gutenberg by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Warning, the above tinyurl in the posters sig sends you to http://www.tkqlhce.com/ a site banned by the hosts file I get from http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/ .

      That's Commission Junction, Newegg's affiliates provider. Perhaps the software that makes your hosts file can't deal with redirects and somebody else uses CJ and has crap on their website?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  29. The Vatican is more dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Vatican promotes religion which is just as dangerous as Satanism. Actually, Satanism has never caused any harm, the same can't be said of Catholicism.

  30. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would you trust leaving you little boy with, the vatican, or satanists? Tough call.

  31. Church and obvious threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess he confuses satanism an pedophilia?

  32. Unintended Consequences by GoodBuddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The internet facilitates people of like minds finding each other. This could be people working for good causes and people working for evil causes. People have found each other through networks for long periods of time. The internet just makes it easier. This can be scary. It helps domestic terrorists find each other and it helps Christians find each other. And whether something is bad or good can be debated. I work with a long existent LGBT rights organization in developing their internet strategy. Our blog isn't one of the real popular ones that has thousands of readers a day (such as Joe My God) but the people who do read us are important people. Who then cite our views on the situation in various news articles in dead tree publishing. But our opponents, who I refer to collectively as Anti-Gay, Inc., are equally as engaged with promoting their views on the internet. But our supporters are younger while the opponents supporters are older and less savvy with technology. This issue of enabling bad people to find each other is one of the unintended consequences of technology. Sort of like how the automobile was originally a technology to promote a cleaner enviroment.

    1. Re:Unintended Consequences by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's all in the labeling. Instead of referring to them as Anti-Gay Inc", why not refer to them as "Anti-Civil Rights", or "the Anti-Freedom of Association clowns"?

      Same as the Vatican referring to themselves as "The Holy See". More and more people are referring to them as "Pedophiles International", and Vatican City as PedVille*

      *no, I'm not suggesting that zanga come out with a new "kid-themed" game

    2. Re:Unintended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ort of like how the automobile was originally a technology to promote a cleaner enviroment.

      It does promote a clean environment, the roads aren't covered in horse shit and flies any more.

  33. Re:Sex scandal = Satan exists within Catholic Chur by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    "Our priests didn't really rape children! It was Satan that made them do it! He put his sin-tentacles into the priests' brains and manipulated them, so you can't hold the priests responsible for their actions."

  34. Alternatively... by Zouden · · Score: 2

    The internet makes it much easier to find (mis)information about "demonic possession" and therefore increase the demand for exorcists.
    I think it goes something like this:
    1. Fundamentalist parent is concerned that teenage daughter's behaviour indicates she's dabbling in the occult, or demonic possession,
    2. Parent looks up symptoms of demonic possession on the internet, finds other fundamentalist parents who describe similar symptoms ("Once I smelled alcohol on my daughter's breath!"), thus confirming parent's fears,
    3. Parent calls for an exorcist,
    4. Profit (for some).

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    1. Re:Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they spell it "prophet" to create confusion.

  35. Why all the worry about Satan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As opposed to that other bastard in the first part of the "good book"?

  36. So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Father Nanni warned that priests and the faithful should never look at the prayers and rites of exorcism as being "a magic formula."' <sarcasm>Heavens, no, of course not. That would imply exorcism were some kind of witchcraft. </sarcasm>

    Some participants and speakers said they're convinced demonic influence has increased drastically, in part because of the growth of "La Santa Muerta" in Mexico and other cults, voodoo, witchcraft and Satanic practices, as well as increasing secularism and lack of connection with God and the sacraments."

    "The devil has more power today precisely because there is more sin, he said."

    Remind me again why the catholic church stopped burning witches?
    Ah, yes, Mainly because people ceased to believe in the power of Witchcraft and in the existence of a Satanic conspiracy.

    So first they stop burning witches because they ceased to believe in the power of witchcraft, but now apparently they changed their minds and complain there's more sin and witchcraft. Guess why?

    Some people are desperately trying to get us into the new dark ages. That's not to say times haven't changed of course. Technology has advanced considerably. Where previously people were burnt at the stake, now we have flame throwers.

  37. yet more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is just yet more darn claptrap from someone that is seeing a real decline in funds because more people are beginning to see that All religions offer nothing but tales myhts and legends with Zero substance and Zero factual proof .

    RELIGION is the original method for the few to the many by using scare mongering and threats of all sorts of horrendous deaths it is enough to make you laugh the knickers of of you ..

    have you heard about Audi's new car they are calling it the Doodi Humm the Audi Doodi

  38. Water is wet. Grass is green. by Qwrk · · Score: 1

    And I reckon' that the behaviour of the Roman Catholic Church has led to a sharp rise in the demand for psychologists, psychiatrists, children's welfare workers, and other people caring for the abused and downtrodden.

  39. Vatican Warns That Internet Promotes Satanism... by Bizzeh · · Score: 2

    ...Internet Warns That Vatican Promotes Cultism

  40. Re:Sex scandal = Satan exists within Catholic Chur by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    One, it wasn't the fact that priests abused children that was the work of the anti-Christ, it was the scandals generated. It was much better for them when they would just shuffle known child rapists from one place to another and lie to everyone in the community about it. But for some reason, that evil anti-Christ turned that into a scandal.

    And two, in Japan, Satan wouldn't have used his tentacles on the priests brains, but on the children directly. Uh oh, am I going to hell for that one?

  41. Christianity Promotes Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They made him up, didn't they?

  42. Remember the "printing press"? by retroworks · · Score: 2

    The Catholic Church has had some bad experiences with this in the past. Think 1450 AD was bad? The internet is like Gutenberg on speed. Satan actually maintains one of the tamer websites, I've discovered things way more evil than Satan on the internet, and things more godly than church. Next thing you know, people won't have to attend choir to enjoy music.

    --
    Gently reply
  43. Job Creation! by RaiIGunner · · Score: 0

    Look what the internet can do for you! First it brought about the election of an unqualified US POTUS, then it brought about a war in Libya, and now it has job opportunities for you in exorcism!

    --
    President Perry 2016 or else.
    1. Re:Job Creation! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      Just the kind of gibberish I expect from a Creationist, especially one crying out the name of the biblical story the church gets most completely wrong. The story of a guy who'd have been tempted most by the Internet if the story happened today, but in which story the Internet would be the tool of god, not "satan".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  44. Re:Sex scandal = Satan exists within Catholic Chur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...He claimed that the sex abuse scandals which have engulfed the Church... ...were proof that the anti-Christ was waging a war against the Holy See."

    Yeah, it certainly wasn't promoted by the Vatican turning a blind eye to the early reports and just shuffling the offending members from parish to parish to hide them and avoid a big scandal, which would have given it a lot of time to fester and grow.

  45. the irony by maakri · · Score: 0

    of child molesters complaining about satanism.

  46. Good for business by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    The free market can save them. Whenever there is a sharp rise in demand - raise prices. Charge more for exorcism and make some serious cash. Oh, wait, catholics think that profit is a sin...

  47. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Telegraph reports that the Roman Catholic Church has warned that the internet has fueled a surge in Satanism that has led to a sharp rise in the demand for exorcists

    In other news:
    ... morons are able to find self-diagnosing information much more easily on the internet.
    ... finding Exorcists to utilize their services has gotten much easier with the internet.
    ... Exorcists communicate between each other much more easily with the internet.

    I'm sure there was a "surge in Satanism" when the telephone was invented, and again with the phonebook.

    But don't let the obvious get in the way of zealots.

  48. oh those wacky Christians by jollyreaper · · Score: 2

    I'd always thought that the one advantage they'd have to the existence of demonic possession and proof of Satan would be that they could at least say "See? That part of the story's right. So you have to believe that there's a God, too!" But, as many have pointed out, one doesn't always follow the other. A pagan could point to the tree shattered by the thunderbolt and say that this is proof of Zeus for where else could such a bolt have come from? Before science explained such things, the skeptic's arguments were as baseless as the pagan's claims. If there are demons, does this imply there must be a Satan? And even if all of Catholic demonology were proven to be accurate in the enumeration and ranking of such things, could we trust church dogma on their origin story?

    I always liked the idea of a story where the demonic possessions are happening and are supernatural, not just misdiagnosed epilepsy, and yet a very effective exorcist is himself an unbeliever in the faith.

    It also makes me think of a possibly apocryphal story....

    LEGEND HAS IT that in the early 1920s one of Vladimir Lenin's fellow Bolsheviks asked him to justify the growing number of atrocities they were committing in the name of a socialist future. "If you want to make an omelet," Lenin insisted, "you have to be willing to break a few eggs." To which the Bolshevik replied, "Comrade, I see the broken eggs everywhere. But where, oh where, is the omelet?"

    I see your demons but where is your God?

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:oh those wacky Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternately: "You can't make an omelet without breaking dozens of eggs beneath your steel-toed boot, after you publicly disembowel the chicken that laid them as a warning to others."

    2. Re:oh those wacky Christians by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      I see your demons but where is your God?

      Asking for three-dimensional, physical proof of what is spiritual is rather illogical, yes? The proof that God exists has nothing to do with science whatsoever. It has to do with the historical accuracy of the scriptures themselves, the history and tradition of Christianity (Catholicism in particular) and Judaism, as well as various miracles which allegedly occurred. Of course you can't see these right in front of your face, but that's what faith is for. If you look beyond the simple "can you prove that He exists" argument, you'll find a lot of things that "prove" that He exists, but not quite in the way you're expecting. St. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher, wrote the Summa Theologica, an unfinished work that (in part of it) attempts to prove that God exists using human logic alone, a rather incredible feat if you ask me.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    3. Re:oh those wacky Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Marxist and that quote doesn't sound accurate. After 1921 (Lenin died in early 1924) Lenin's health seriously deteriorated and he spent much of his time either in a wheelchair or in bed. For much of the last years of his life he could not speak. There was something of a red terror during the Civil War (1918-1921) but that quickly abated with the launching of the New Economic Policy (NEP). By the mid 20s however Stalin was well on his way into murdering his way into power, rounding of the older Bolsheviks and liquidating them. I cannot make apologies for the various mistakes made by Lenin and Trotsky during those early years suffice to point out that almost immediately after the Revolution there was a bloody civil war in Russia with around 20 nations who participated on the side of the Whites. Bad decisions were made to ensure the survival of the young would-be socialist regime that were never corrected. Then Lenin died and Stalin seized the opportunity. History, the gulags, the KGB etc is the rest. I find it best to remember the dream of what could have been then how things actually turned out.

      I could go into much more detail but I doubt anyone who isn't a Marxist would care. :-) Hope that helps.

    4. Re:oh those wacky Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally stealing that last line for some song lyrics.

  49. The Vatican has its own Satan worshippers... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...who cover up the crimes of baby-raping priests in order to protect their own interests.

    Not that I believe any of this God/Satan claptrap, but if you're gonna accuse others of Satanism, it's incumbent upon you to have a long, hard, honest look at yourself before doing so.

    BTW, the Catholic church isn't primarily a religious institution, any more than the Mafia is primarily a waste disposal business. It's a huge financial and political entity - soul-saving and Satan-stomping are just tools to help maintain and consolidate the power base.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:The Vatican has its own Satan worshippers... by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      ...who cover up the crimes of baby-raping priests in order to protect their own interests.

      Exactly what interests would those be? The Church doesn't "cover up the crimes", it openly opposes them. Some members of the Church have covered up some crimes, but that doesn't make the entire Church as a whole bad.

      Not that I believe any of this God/Satan claptrap, but if you're gonna accuse others of Satanism, it's incumbent upon you to have a long, hard, honest look at yourself before doing so.

      Last I checked, Satanism is the name of a variety of actual religions that are practiced in parts of the world (however small their membership may be relative to more popular religions). Mere sin itself is not "satanism". The Church HAS apologized for the sin of it's members. Some priests might have committed crimes, but can you explain to me how that makes the entire Church itself a criminal institution? What sense would it make for them to randomly abuse children? What in the world would they gain?

      BTW, the Catholic church isn't primarily a religious institution, any more than the Mafia is primarily a waste disposal business. It's a huge financial and political entity - soul-saving and Satan-stomping are just tools to help maintain and consolidate the power base.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Your claims that the Church is "powerful" and "rich" are purely popular myths that are quickly debunked with a simple Google search. Likewise, the "millions" of Inquisition victims are also highly innacurate. Spouting that crap just makes you look like an idiot that only hates on the Church to seem cool and karma whore. You're going to need to troll a lot harder than that.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
  50. Isn't the reverse also true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this logic makes sense, then the reverse should also be true. Shouldn't more people be turning to God because of catholicscomehome.org, religion.com, wikipedia religious information and the thousands of religious websites now available to people who may have never reached to a church until the Internet? For example, a Google search for United Methodist Church yields 11.7 million sites to explore, only 2.5 million for Satanism. So if we use the Internet as an excuse, shouldn't 5x more people be turning to God than Satan?

  51. No no no no by ewe2 · · Score: 2

    I'm certain that the Elders of the Internet would never allow Satanism to flourish. Unless it hadn't been properly demagnetized...

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  52. re internet by freddieb · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a good way to make some money!

  53. On the rise, yes I thought so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An exorcist should be called when "the moral certainty has been reached that the person is possessed", said Father Nanni, a member of the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints. That could be indicated by radical and disturbing changes in the person's behaviour and voice, or an ability to garble in foreign languages or nonsensical gibberish. Father Gabriele Amorth said people who are possessed by Satan vomit shards of glass and pieces of iron, scream, dribble and slobber, utter blasphemies and have to be physically restrained

    Dear Vatican,
     
    My child has autism. She puts stuff in his mouth - anything. Most of the time she just speaks gibberish but she also does the echolalia thing to the point some people think she speaks fluent Japanese! One day, after ingesting some shards of glass and pieces of iron, she threw them up and started dribbling and slobbering. I suppose she was in pain or perhaps just upset because she was screaming and uttering blasphemies too. This all happened at school and as she was uncontrollable, she was deemed to need to be physically restrained.

    Should I call an excorcist?

    Love,
    H.

  54. links, to above articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:links, to above articles by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      So this where modern governments take their talking points for attacks on education! They quote the damn thing almost verbatim!

      Just to make it clear -- "religious freedom" means a duty to pander to ignorance and superstition. No government can possibly remove people's capability to think something stupid, so being able to praise "The Lord" (dark or otherwise) or "seek the truth" (in one's own navel or in ancient folklore) should be completely irrelevant there. Declaring superstition and fraud a "right" protects its perpetuation in society and cripples public education.

      This shit must be abolished.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  55. Internet Warns that Vatican Promotes Pedophilia by moxley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Internet Warns that Vatican Promotes Pedophilia

    1. Re:Internet Warns that Vatican Promotes Pedophilia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what the Vatican fears that the Internet makes it much easier to report on when their own members commit pedophilia.

    2. Re:Internet Warns that Vatican Promotes Pedophilia by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. The existence of a scandal does not mean that the church itself promotes it. In fact, it does not approve of sexual abuse whatsoever and theyr'e trying to get rid of it. How an idiotic, immature, and trollish comment such as this gets a "+5 insightful" rating only shows how immature you all are.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    3. Re:Internet Warns that Vatican Promotes Pedophilia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go suck off a baby, you queer cunt.

    4. Re:Internet Warns that Vatican Promotes Pedophilia by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      In fact, it does not approve of sexual abuse whatsoever and theyr'e trying to get rid of it.

      Perhaps we're simply not aware of their efforts, but from the outside it really doesn't look like they're trying very hard.

  56. They're right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Internet does promote satanism, which is why all Catholics should stop using it immediately.

  57. They're kind of right. But it's a good thing! by IrquiM · · Score: 1

    Satanism is really everything that opposes their god, and his will.

    Having Internet spreading the truth about everything, it certainly undermines all the work the Catholic church has put into hiding it from its followers.

    --
    This is blinging
  58. dangers of satanism? What about priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "says Carlo Climati, (...) who specializes in the dangers posed to young people by Satanism."
    Oh, how about the dangers posed to young people by Catholic priests?

  59. Stupid title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Vatican does not says that Internet promotes satanism. The title is totally wrong. Please read TFA.

  60. The Internet also promotes lawbreaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Internet has made it far too easy to accidentally break laws...without even knowing it...and potentially with life-ruining consequences.

  61. Funny how places of utmost power dont know squat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Satanist was original a hebrew word for the resistor or the advisary, it was originally a word the hebrews used when they didnt want to be forced into something or to follow a long with others. Most true satanists simply dont believe in anything, they sort of believe that each man is his own god and the only person who shapes his destiny and life. Very few satanists actually worship satan, and half of them just believe that satan was the true creator and god is a liar because the bible has shown nothing that god is a murderer and deciever while satan has always just told us the truth. As far as I know there still has been no official murder in this country that is directly tied to practioners of devil worshippers.

    Ah the church, how ironic they are the biggest liars in this world.

  62. the internet doesn't 'promote' anything by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    the vatican words this like the internet is some conscious body making decisions and choices of what people are or not doing. in reality, people are doing no less than exercising their free will. truth is, vatican, some people choose to do things the catholic church deems inappropriate. the internet is just a medium which peopleuse to represent whatever religeous viewpoints or perspectives they want to, without people getting burned or strung up for not complying with the dogmatic consensus. at least for now.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  63. Who could it be? by bledri · · Score: 2
    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    1. Re:Who could it be? by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      You bastard.

      I haven't seen Church Chat in SO long. Now I have to find more.

  64. Misleading Headline? by Sam+Andreas · · Score: 2

    IANARC (I am not a Roman Catholic) but I did RTFA. Am I still allowed to comment? :)

    I really hate to spoil the party that seems to happen every time the Roman Catholic church is mentioned on Slashdot but nowhere in the article does anyone say that the Internet promotes *anything* or say that the Internet is to blame for anything.

    They're simply saying that the Internet has fuelled an exchange of information that is a game-changer in the arena these particular clergy are interested in. I don't think anyone on /. could disagree with that. The original article barely mentions the Internet at all.

    There are plenty of articles about the RC Church far more deserving of comment. This one's a non-starter.

  65. Shut the fuck up, you old women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, the Vatican is like some sort of attention-whoring mother-in-law.

  66. I fear the vatican is right by cheekugames · · Score: 1

    I am a techie but a deeply religious person as well, i cannot help but believe that the vatican is true , have you guys not seen the increase in natural calamities in the recent decades with internet becoming more popular , i believe internet has destroyed the moral character of young generation and provided satan with a breeding ground. We must think about it and not make fun of this thought from vatican.

    1. Re:I fear the vatican is right by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      You should help yourself to depend more on reason than on the medieval superstitions the church requires you to believe. Then maybe you'll be better equipped to cope with the Internet and other sources of behavior you'd prefer to avoid than to rely on a cult of baby rapers who insist their worldwide rapes and coverups are proof that the antichrist is warring against them, rather than proof of their own bottomless evil.

      That bible and its church you respect so much has destroyed the moral character of many generations, giving them a "satan" to blame the breeding ground for evil on instead of taking the blame for its own sins in time to stop them.

      Rather than "fear the Vatican", use your "techie blessings" to free yourself from superstition and understand the simply human reasons people do each other wrong. The more people do that, the faster we can turn from the millennia of religion's legacy of moral and physical destruction.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:I fear the vatican is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well recently the number of pirates in the world has been dropping. Clearly this has effect on natural disasters as well, considering their disappearance has been linked to climate change.

      Now if you excuse me, I've had enough made up facts for the day.

    3. Re:I fear the vatican is right by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      It's just a lack of pirates. Don't you see that the increase in climate catastrophes corresponds with the time that we started to fight the pirates in the far east seas and the African coasts?

      In other words, correlation and causation are not to be mixed. There has been so much happening in the last two decades that there are FAR more likely reasons for the changes. Not to mention that God tends to think in other dimensions of time, do you really think he'd react what would be to him instantly? You could as well claim this to be the result of the "ungodlyness" of the 60s generation and the hippies.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  67. The Vatican promotes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Vatican promotes satanism everytime they spout out nonsense like this. This is just a other example of why I converted from catholic to satanist.

    1. Re:The Vatican promotes... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Funny. I converted from catholic to human-being-thinking-for-myself.

      Yes, I know that LaVeyans consider that the same. I just don't think I need a label for it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  68. Hilarious by bedouin · · Score: 1

    Great April Fools joke Independent.

    Oh wait -- it was written on the 30th of March.

    1. Re:Hilarious by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And here you thought the Church is stuck in the past. Here's the proof, it's ahead of its time!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  69. They should be happy, they made up the concept by Subm · · Score: 2

    They should be happy. They fabricated the concept of Satan so if the internet helps people spread the idea, it's helping spread their fabrication.

    If they don't want it spread, don't make up the concept.

  70. They are right: Internet is dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact while surfing the net childs are too busy to go to the priest, and the priest can not have fun with them

  71. TROLL by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    FTFS:

    "The internet makes it much easier than in the past to find information about Satanism," said Carlo Climati, a member of the university who specialises in the dangers posed to young people by Satanism.

    - trolling for the church's brownie points?

  72. My invisible friend.... by Tanuki64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is good. Yours is evil.

    1. Re:My invisible friend.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And my God can kick your God's ass!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:My invisible friend.... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Simple, but wrong.

      Satan isn't the invisible friend of anyone else. You have to be a christian for the term to have any meaning. To me as an atheist, Satan is as real as Jahwe, Allah, the FSM (sorry Pastafarians, please don't drown me in red sauce). For someone of a different religion, say a Hindu, Satan doesn't have any more meaning than Shiva has for a christian. Satan, god, same thing if you're a Hindu.

      So actually, it is more like "my invisible friend is good, but I also have an invisible enemy and he's really bad and everyone I don't like has to be his minion, I'm sure".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  73. Methodology by retroworks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reading the story... the evidence provided is that demand for exorcists has increased. This, according to the Church, suggests that Satanism is on the increase - the same as an increase in sales of flu medicine may indicate increase in illness. To explain the rise in demand for treatment of Satanic possession, they formulate the theory that the internet could have promoted Satanism, increasing demand for exorcists. An alternative explanation would be that exorcists formerly could only advertise in very large markets - not in the yellow pages of rural areas. With the increase in internet, victims of Satan have wider access to exorcists, who defeat Lucifer in areas where he formerly established safe harbors. Therefore the Internet promotes Exorcism, not Satanism. And flu medicine sales may indicate meth labs are also on the increase in rural areas, which could also increase demand for exorcists. Personally, I find crackheads scarier than Satan.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Methodology by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      I don't get it... if Satan were all powerful (or almost all powerful) why would the internet - a human creation - be the differentiating factor in how many people he could reach? Wouldn't he be able to touch any person, from the full scope of humanity, at will?

      How is it that a device, who's operation is limited basically to electrons flying around a bunch of wires and circuits, is able to increase the span of control of a magical being?

      How did things work for him, pre-internet?

      --
      Huh?
  74. Ignorance of Sin Is No Excuse for Avoiding It by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. Life is a test, they say, where god tests our faith in Jesus. Pass and go to heaven; fail and go to hell.

    Even if this self-pitying myth about "Satan's war on the church" were actual truth, the Church should embrace it. Because it's "god's plan" to offer us temptation for us to refuse. The Internet is doing god's work.

    But really it's just more hopeless BS PR from the Vatican to avoid blame for its own sins. Specifically its rampant baby rape:

    [Gabriele Amorth] (the "president for life" of the International Association of Exorcists) claimed that the sex abuse scandals which have engulfed the Church in the US, Ireland, Germany and other countries, were proof that the anti-Christ was waging a war against the Holy See. He said Pope Benedict XVI believed "wholeheartedly" in the practice of exorcism.

    See? It's not a cult of baby rapers, headed by an evil pope who protected (and protects) them worldwide. It's just Satan and the antichrist making these people rape babies. People who are our only prayer to escape the clutches of Satan - and his goddamn Internet. The Church will save you, not rape your babies. Amen.

    FWIW, the fortune at the bottom of the page in which I'm posting says "To err is human. To blame someone else for your mistakes is even more human." Brought to you by the Internet. I suppose that's proof that my computer is possessed by Satan. I should bring it to church, which starts in 15 minutes here as it has for literally millennia. Maybe someone will exorcise it, since the church's huge success in the world has been based on such proof of its power to protect us from Satan all these years.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Ignorance of Sin Is No Excuse for Avoiding It by defaria · · Score: 1

      Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

    2. Re:Ignorance of Sin Is No Excuse for Avoiding It by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      Good post. I wish I had points today.

      --
      Huh?
    3. Re:Ignorance of Sin Is No Excuse for Avoiding It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... Amen!

    4. Re:Ignorance of Sin Is No Excuse for Avoiding It by pongo000 · · Score: 2

      The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. Life is a test, they say, where god tests our faith in Jesus. Pass and go to heaven; fail and go to hell.

      Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that reason points us towards faith (para. 36). The Church doesn't teach us to have "blind faith" in Jesus, but to use reason towards establishing faith. This is the reason why carrying a geek card and being a Catholic are not mutually exclusive, contrary to the drivel that you might see here.

      The Church doesn't teach that "life is a test." Instead, the Church teaches that God gave man free will, and that you are free to allow him in your life or not, as the case may be (para. 1). It's all about choice. There is no pass/fail test. If you choose to follow God, and to live a life that fulfills the greatest of the commandments (love God and your neighbor), then the kingdom of God is yours.

      It's not a cult of baby rapers, headed by an evil pope who protected (and protects) them worldwide.

      I realize this is sarcasm on your part, but you might be interest in knowing that the US Dept. of Education estimates between 6% and 10% of school-aged children have been molested by teachers and other school employees. Considering there are about 74 million school-aged children in the US, I'd say the child molestation epidemic in the US public school system is a vastly larger problem than that of the Catholic Church. Maybe you should devote your energy towards that cover-up.

    5. Re:Ignorance of Sin Is No Excuse for Avoiding It by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      So what? I didn't say "blind faith", you did.

      If you "choose to follow god", you go to heaven. If you choose otherwise, you go to hell. You might like to call that something else, but it's obviously a test, with pass=heaven and fail=hell.

      Being a geek means you know how things really work, facts and logic in thorough detail. Your fallacies and word games are contrary to being a geek. If you were a geek about religion, you'd understand that it's superstition and power games.

      My mention of the baby raper cult and its evil protector pope is not sarcasm. The Catholic Church's baby rape is special, because the only reason the Church has its riches and power is because it pretends it opposes baby rape rather than protecting it.

      I devote my energy against coverups of baby rape when I see them. Post a story that Slashdot publishes about baby rape in schools and I might devote some energy to it. But your suggestion is that I ignore the Church's baby rape and coverup simply because the Church isn't the only one doing it. You are part of the coverup. You are going to hell.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Ignorance of Sin Is No Excuse for Avoiding It by pongo000 · · Score: 2

      Being a geek means you know how things really work, facts and logic in thorough detail. Your fallacies and word games are contrary to being a geek. If you were a geek about religion, you'd understand that it's superstition and power games.

      Reason tells me that there's nothing lost in believing in God. It always amuses me that this freedom of choice (to believe or not to believe) seems to stick in the craw of many non-believers, as if it's a personal insult to them.

      But your suggestion is that I ignore the Church's baby rape and coverup simply because the Church isn't the only one doing it. You are part of the coverup.

      I didn't suggest that you ignore anything. I just suggested that you apply facts and logic to the situation, and realize that the Catholic Church is only a small part of a much larger child abuse problem. To focus on one small aspect of a larger problem is rather narrow-minded. You chip away at a granite block with a dental pick, but at the end of the day, it's still a granite block. I'm just suggestion you use something large, maybe a sledgehammer and chisel.

      You are going to hell.

      Your guess is as good as mine.

    7. Re:Ignorance of Sin Is No Excuse for Avoiding It by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Even if this self-pitying myth about "Satan's war on the church" were actual truth, the Church should embrace it. Because it's "god's plan" to offer us temptation for us to refuse. The Internet is doing god's work.

      You just said that God's plan was for them to "refuse". So here they are "refusing"... they are doing precisely what you said the plan was.

      So why are you saying they should "embrace" it? Or are you saying they should embrace it because its an opportunity to refuse? In which case, that's idiotic.

      Just as its idiotic to suggest that the police should be embracing criminals, and should probably celebrate when a new organized crime syndicate moves into town, because then they have more criminals to track down.

    8. Re:Ignorance of Sin Is No Excuse for Avoiding It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When "think of the children!" stories come up, people bitch about how the pedophile witch hunt is being used to take away their rights.

      When Catholic Church stories come up, people keep pointing out that the whole organization should be brought down because it's full of pedophile priests.

  75. Actually by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

    Catholics promote Satanism, else what would there to be to
    hate?

    1. Re:Actually by clang_jangle · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've long thought that Christianity is mislabeled as "monotheistic". In fact they have two gods, a god of light named yaw-eh and a god of darkness named satan or lucifer. Damned heathens...

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:Actually by J.J.+Dane · · Score: 1

      Satanism is a Christian belief system, they're just rooting for the opposition. It's a political difference,mostly

    3. Re:Actually by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't forget to count int the thousands if not more "Saints" and the dozens of Angels they "pray to".

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Actually by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure they're really a different side. After all, neither could exist without the other.

    5. Re:Actually by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except according to Christianity, Satan isn't a god, he's a fallen angel, and doesn't have godly powers (omnipotence and omniscience). He's unable to create something from nothingness, for instance. Thus, according to their beliefs, there is only one god.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    6. Re:Actually by sznupi · · Score: 0

      Many (maybe most) "heathen polytheisms" have one ubergod, even few faces of one (yeah, like with the Trinity, even if this one is more absurd in insisting that's still monotheism and simply a "mystery" - it's only good, once the faithful get conditioned to accept such stuff early on, everything can be swept under the carpet)

      Most polytheistic deities are really on the level of angels or saints.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:Actually by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Inspired by your post, I made a quick google search... why, yes, there is quite a bit of Zen Christianity / Christian Zen out there ;p

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:Actually by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to count int the thousands...

      Well, you could use a float - just mind the dot.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    9. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doublethink much?

    10. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...what?

      The bible says almost, but not quite, nothing at all about satan.

      So where the hell are you getting that from? Just making up shit?

    11. Re:Actually by IRWolfie- · · Score: 1

      Since God is meant to be all powerful he must, presumably, choose for Satan to exist.

    12. Re:Actually by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      For a God with omniscience he doesn't seem to be very good at picking/making Angels then eh?

  76. Coming soon... by Romberg · · Score: 1

    Want to worship Satan? There's an app for that.

  77. Is goatse satanic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If so, /. supports satanism.

    1. Re:Is goatse satanic? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Actually no. Goatse is a photo of a man stretching his own ass. Satan is a mythological character that supposedly oversees torture of dead people.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  78. promoting Satanism by rev_sanchez · · Score: 1
    --
    If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  79. Stop complaining about the competition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dammit Vatican - it is simply competition. A very closely related one as well, same set of ghosts and gods, just a different choice of top dog. Stop complaining and step up your game instead.

  80. The usual church stance: Information is baaaaaad by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    C'mon, get your head out of the medieval ass. Just when I thought the RCC finally managed to arrive at least in the 20th century, they do something like this.

    How does more accessible information automatically make someone a worse person? If "satanism" is gaining speed with the advent of the internet and access to it, the reason could simply be that it's more appealing than what you got to offer? Improve your product! I mean, I could see why people would choose hedonism over kneeling and praying, it sure has a better ring to it.

    Again a case of shooting the messenger instead of trying to address the message. Sure, ignorant people are easier to control and easier to convince that your idea is the good one, after all they don't get to hear the other side and only get to hear your propaganda. But if you have a problem with people getting information about your adversary, you have a problem with your message, it's not that the people are to blame because they want to know both sides of the tale.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  81. Wake me when..... by couchslug · · Score: 1

    ... the Satanists pay out over one billion dollars in settlements (fo far) worldwide for playing SYSTEMATIC "hide the pedo predator".

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  82. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, the Vatican comes up with increasingly far fetched scare tactics in a desperate attempt to stay relevant in a world that's no longer concerned with it's 8th century medieval bullshit.

  83. No mod points, but completely agree by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2

    Any student of general Christian theology would concur that many Protestant sects are actually anti-Christian (they promote the idea that it is OK to worship both God and money, completely contrary to the NT).

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  84. Nudity would be ok if not for Satan by Zecheus · · Score: 2
    Nerds should care about the spread of Satanism. Its Satan's fault we wear clothes, have to work hard, and women have pain in childbirth, according to the Christian tradition.

    He appeared as a snake in the beginning and fooled Eve and Adam into rebellion against God. The consequences of the rebellion are 1) shame from nudity, 2) hard work for sustenance, and 3) painful childbirth. See Genesis 3.

    Those who support Satanism implicitly support these consequences. Only nihilists won't care about the spread of Satanism, but then do nihilists care about anything?

    1. Re:Nudity would be ok if not for Satan by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Christian 'tradition' is all - the serpent is never identified as Satan. It's just an assumption that Christians started to make because, well... it just seemed to make sense.

    2. Re:Nudity would be ok if not for Satan by Zecheus · · Score: 1

      I looked it up in my copy of the New Jerome's Biblical Commentary. The first association between the serpent and Satan was made by hellenist-jewish tradition, see Wisdom 2:24. Scholars date the writing of Wisdom to the last half of the 1st century BCE. So, no, its not "an assumption that Christians started to make because it made sense".

    3. Re:Nudity would be ok if not for Satan by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But it's also long after the text was first written.

    4. Re:Nudity would be ok if not for Satan by cffrost · · Score: 1

      1) shame from nudity

      You seriously want to see everyone naked? Further, don't clothes have any other functions? E.g., uniforms, winter coats, waders, control-top pantyhose, sports bras, etc?

      2) hard work for sustenance

      So a god was going to build our skyscrapers, grill our steaks, and wire our grids, but then... The god says: "Satan! Buddy! I've got a little problem involving this uh, contract, see... Anyways, I was wondering... [whisper whisper]"

      3) painful childbirth

      Which invisible super-friend invented this little miracle?

      See Genesis 3.

      Er... I'll get right on that, as soon as I finish this current issue of Scientific American, alright? =)

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    5. Re:Nudity would be ok if not for Satan by Chowderbags · · Score: 1
      Why should nerds complain about any of that?

      1) shame from nudity

      Have you taken a look at the nerds in your workplace? Would you really *want* to see any of them nude?

      2) hard work for sustenance

      Nerds working hard? Since when?

      3) painful childbirth

      I don't have a uterus. Looks like I'm free and clear! And for the woman, science has given us some nice drugs to help out. Looks like science gave the finger to God!

      Seriously, if you took 5 minutes to wikipedia it, you'd learn several things.

      1) Satanism doesn't worship Satan so much as worship the self.
      2) Satan is an allegory for someone rebelling against a tyrant who was trying to keep knowledge from us.
      3) Most of what's done is done for the lulz.
      4) They're not nihilists, they're basically Objectivists with a flair for the dramatic.

      I don't subscribe to the views myself, but it only takes a couple seconds to disabuse myself of ignorance.

  85. That's what Satan wants you to think by tepples · · Score: 1

    Think 1450 AD was bad? The internet is like Gutenberg on speed.

    Agreed 100 percent so far. But:

    Satan actually maintains one of the tamer websites, I've discovered things way more evil than Satan on the internet

    That's what Satan wants you to think. Of course Satan makes his web site look mild so that his minions' sites look stronger by comparison. Satan wants you to think he's the lesser of evils so that you'll follow him.

    and things more godly than church

    Yes, some churches are misled, and they are not as strong in the forc^W faith as they wish.

  86. Fuuuuccccccc..... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1, Insightful

    (facepalm) (headdesk) What fucking year is it? How does any adult take these miseryshit religions seriously?

    Been a great week for religion. Between this and grown adults murdering people in a UN embassy because some ass in Florida burned a book, we're really set for the rest of the 21st century.

  87. Satanism == Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Satanism is just the acceptable face of Christianity

  88. William Blake by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Blake believed that Satan had in fact taken over the Church from within. I know he was bonkers, but it is at least an interesting argument:

    Surely, O Satan, thou art but a dunce
    And cannot tell the garment from the man
    Every harlot was a virgin once
    Nor canst thou ever turn Kate into Nan
    Thought thou art worshipped by the names divine
    Of Jesus and Jehovah, thou art still
    The son of morn in weary night's decline
    The lost traveler's dream under the hill.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  89. That Wouldn't Be A Bad Way To Go by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    If you're a Christian disenfranchised by the sexual abuse scandals or because you were sexually abused by a priest when you were younger. If you don't feel like changing the entire mythology and you like bacon, the Church of Satan might be right for you! It's all the same stuff, anyway...

    It'd be interesting to see a break-down by religion of pedophilia incidents by their clergy in the past, say, 80 years. I'm pretty sure Christianity would be the front-runner by thousands of incidents. The only other time I seem to hear about it in the news is when some wacko off-shoot of the Mormon religion gets convicted of something. To be fair to the Mormons, the main branch of the church seems to have renounced the non-mainstream views of marriage the church was established on. You never hear about Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or Satan Worshippers touching the children. Maybe they just have a better PR department to keep it under wraps when their priests touch the children...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:That Wouldn't Be A Bad Way To Go by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I've heard of a few problems with young Muslim girls being married off to older men. But I think this is tribalism, not a feature of the specific faith (the offshoot Mormon cults tend to behave in a similar manner). Isolate a population from the moderating influences of society, and the village elders are free to look for whatever excuse is available to pounce on young tail (boys, girls, whatever).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  90. Personally, I blame Google by PPH · · Score: 1

    As a child, I Googled 'Santa' once. Google replied with "Did you mean 'Satan'?"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  91. Protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  92. Hmmm by koan · · Score: 1

    The rise in Satanism seems to match the rise of Catholic pedophiles, considering just how many priest are pedophiles, sexual deviance must be listed in the Catholic recruiting pamphlet as a bonus.
    IMO the Vatican should be torn down, all their "treasures" sold to benefit Man and of course their library (which points out in their off limits books just how much of a sham/scam Christianity is) will be open to the public so we can discuss why in this day and age the ignorance of religion still exist.
    Truly I am baffled by religion, that anyone who goes into *any* church can take what happens there as truth, or that it has any more meaning than a well run scam.

    No one but humans are keeping score, grow up.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  93. Internet: Stop promoting Satanism! by toygeek · · Score: 1

    The Roman Catholic Church doesn't want to lose its monopoly!

  94. Vatican Warns That Internet Promotes Satanism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and Pedophilia.

    oh wait...

  95. It's worse than that in a way by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I hate to argue with the proponent of the view that xmlsucks, but you're treating the Bible as if it was a one person project whereas actually it's the work of many people, many of opposing views (the author of Ecclesiates was practically an atheist.)

    Unfortunately they didn't use cvs or git, unless they did and the version history is on a stack of stone tablets somewhere.

    The actual first line of the Bible is, transliterated roughly, Bereshit ba'ra elohim... In the beginning, the Gods created... Further on this is confirmed when the Gods announce "...will become like us..."

    It's something known to theological students, and it's a kind of "we'll just observe that and pass on". The book of Beginnings is a collection of creation myths from around the Middle East, in no particular order, and there are several different gods referenced: the plural gods of the first chapter, the god referred to as yod-he-vav-he, Adonai, and the Watchers. There isn't much connection between these old semitic legends and the Prophets demanding justice for the widowed and the orphaned; what Jeremiah would make of the Tea Party and the neocons I dread to think, except that he wouldn't get reported on Fox News. Perhaps in the New Yorker.

    It's a tribute, by the way, to the passion for accuracy of the compilers of the Bible that they left Bereshit alone. It would have been so easy to substitute Adonai for Elohim - but they were too honest. The only thing they did was to change the "created" verb to singular, presumably because they felt they had to do something, but a minor change to a verb ending wasn't nearly as bad as changing a holy name to something else.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  96. Religious Freedom by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Most constitutions grant religious freedom. And freedom of speech.

    So more information about satanism is a good thing, or not?

    As long as the followers of religions follow the local laws, who cares what they believe in?

    angel'o'sphere

    P.S. looking at the Jedi religion e.g.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  97. doesnt the vatican by nopainogain · · Score: 0

    protect child-predators? I don't think the anti-christ is that bad if he is truly the polar opposite of the vatican.

  98. 'catholicism' is worse than 'satanism' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, the 'catholic' mental illness afflicts more people than 'satanism'.
    As we all know, 'catholicism' is a nasty coercive, fear mongering, controlling, authoritarian, and fascistic dogma. Clearly the 'catholics' should be worrying more about eliminating their own religion, than 'satanism'. Most people that I have met, who profess 'satanistic' tendencies, do so more as some kind of fashion statement, and are not nearly as unbalanced as those afflicted by the more common, and more radical 'catholic' dogma.
    While it is understandable - given the limited number of stupid people, who may be infected with religion - that one religion/cult will want to see another religion/cult fail, I find it particularly rich that the 'catholics' choose to criticise 'satanism', which seems relatively benign in the damage it has done to society, when compared to the heinous effect of their own backward and medieval doctrine.

  99. Online exorcism rules! by Thraxy · · Score: 1

    We always order all of our exorcisms online.

  100. gee.. i wonder .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, whenever i listen to Norton or Mcafee ..... OOOPS... i mean the Vatican !!! sorrry!! i didnt mean to suggest that the pope's sycophants would stoop to announcing a new 'threat' just for monetary.....OOOPS AGAIN ! i meant 'religious' employment as... OH NO THERE I GO AGAIN!!!... errr... well, those
    exorcists aRe on salary, right? and sOMEone has to pay the cleaning bills for all those paintings/artworks/castles/robes/jewels/funnyhats .. no?

    My real faith is in the fact that stupid zealots bring about their own demise ... It's comforting to read recently that projections say that in a few decades the number of athiests will reach 70% of western society.
    I just wonder what possibly could be revolting.. OH ... err i meant REPULSING them .. .. ya ...

    gee .. sorry about my sloppy use of language ... ;(

  101. WTF! by woolio · · Score: 1

    The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. ...
    Even if this self-pitying myth about "Satan's war on the church" were actual truth, the Church should embrace it. Because it's "god's plan" to offer us temptation for us to refuse. The Internet is doing god's work.

    Basically, what you are saying is that if I were to obey the Church's teachings, then we shouldn't go to church!

    Interestingly, if you replace 'Satanism' with 'terrorism', and replace 'Jesus' with 'X political party', you have just perfectly described many national governments. I guess separation of "church and state" really means "divide and conquer".

    1. Re:WTF! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      WTF is right. Your post doesn't make much sense, except the part you got about obeying the church's teachings would mean avoiding the cesspool of hypocrisy that is the actual church.

      Separation of church and state means separating the disease from the patient. In case you don't understand me, I mean that the church is the disease.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  102. On the other hand by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

    The Internet also makes it easier for people to research Christianity. In just a few minutes you can look up the Pope's latest writings, check on the status of John Paul II's move towards sainthood, Christianity's historic mistakes and atrocities, or gather stats on the various coverups related to pedophile priests.

    It goes both ways Vatican....

    --
    Huh?
  103. Google Search by SlashAdotter · · Score: 1

    A very simplistic, but nevertheless, hard data set does not support their claim:
    satanism: 2,680,000 results
    christianity: 59,800,000 results

  104. Re:Back at you. EU census by sznupi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Vatican probably actually sees the Internet as a threat, not just a random scapegoat. It's the latest (and by farthe greatest) in things which dilute their control over masses.

    Also - it might be an expression of their current unease about the EU-wide census, and the results of its question about religion. About how Internet is the tool to promote "satanisms" of various kind in answering to that question (one of more charming ones, at my place ;p - Google Translate works decently)

    Though in fairness, I prefer Vatican to many others... for example, their position in regards to evolution (or consider Mendel, a Catholic monk; generally, their contribution to progress is immense... even if with some temporary hiccups now and then; emphasis in the quote mine):

    How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
    ...
    the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
    ...
    new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  105. If you get rid of the Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will future generations learn all about PAUL and how great PAUL was and what PAUL did to save the world from Jesus? :-\

  106. More anti-Catholic drivel...just move along by pongo000 · · Score: 2

    The Telegraph as an accurate news source? I would expect better from the /. crowd. But hey, since Catholicism is such an easy target, why not throw away sense and reason and engage in a little hypocrisy?

  107. Satan's Span of Control ? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

    I don't get it... if Satan were all powerful (or almost all powerful) why would the internet - a human creation - be the differentiating factor in how many people he could reach? Wouldn't he be able to touch any person, from the full scope of humanity, at will?

    How is it that a device, who's operation is limited basically to electrons flying around a bunch of wires and circuits, is able to increase the span of control of a magical being?

    How did things work for him, pre-internet?

    (I did post this as a reply above - but after writing, I think it needs it's own post)

    --
    Huh?
    1. Re:Satan's Span of Control ? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I think the argument goes something like the internet enables or even promotes individuals to commit moral sin, that may even be perceived as OK/culturally acceptable.
      I mean you can't argue that pron, piracy etc. has become way more frequent, convenient and anonymously available since the advent of the internet.

    2. Re:Satan's Span of Control ? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      I get your point. But to me it's like saying that guns kill people, rather than people killing people.

      Respectfully, i disagree that the internet is responsible for more porn. People are responsible for more porn. There is a need/demand for it, and the predominant medium to meet that need just happens to be the internet.. today. Yesterday it was printed matter. The day before that, it was peeking through keyholes... all the way back in time. People want to see people naked. (which to me isn't a bad thing.. nature).

      People are responsible for their behavior. And stuff being more easily available doesn't change that. If a serial killer can't find a gun, he's going to use a club or a knife to get his thrill ....

      --
      Huh?
    3. Re:Satan's Span of Control ? by xhrit · · Score: 1

      >you can't argue that pron, piracy etc. has become way more frequent, convenient and anonymously available since the advent of the internet.

      Yes I can. pron, piracy and etc? How about VHS, maybe? internet might have tape media + sneakernet on convenient but maybe not. putting the tape in and pressing dub was alot easier then the transcode / container format mess the internet has brought us. you want to find something maybe you can find a download that is real, maybe not, maybe it is in the right format, maybe you need a new codec.

      a brick of 99c VHS tapes with cash at the store across town was alot more anonymous then downloading from a website when the RIAA can sue for logs. SO that is 2/3? What you got left?

      Frequent? Pirating stuff was pretty easy on tape. So maybe. but prolly more a case of scapegoat is scapegoat.

  108. Vaticans mascot is the Pedobear... by Phizzle · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this is the first time I saw Vatican in the news that wasnt about some priest, bishop, or cardinal involved in buggery. Clean your own house first before casting stones...

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  109. Its all the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Satanism, Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, they're all Bronze Age Mythology; the stronger they are, the weaker actual science is.

    The Catholic Church being one of the first advocate of science is also bullshit. Where was the Catholic church promoting science and education between 400 and 1200? They didn't start promoting it until they started losing power.

    So its time to drop the Bronze Age Mythology, and actually move society forward, because the Magic Man in the Sky is just a myth and isn't going to say anything.

  110. Official Statement from desk of Rev. Tom XZander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Vatican promotes, propagates & Panders the myth of Satanism."

  111. Some perspective... by Shoten · · Score: 1

    Hey, Pope Barnhard...Bernard...Fernan...whatever. Dude, come over here for a minute .

    Okay, yeah, that's better.

    Alright...so I have some helpful advice for you here, when it comes to how to get people's attention and how to get them to get behind you on a cause like this.

    You listening?

    STOP PROTECTING THE PRIESTS THAT FUCK LITTLE BOYS, YOU DUMB FUCK!!!! NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS THAT THE INTERNET IS BOOSTING SALES AT HOT TOPIC UNTIL YOU GUYS STOP RAPING LITTLE BOYS!

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  112. Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Face Palm

  113. The Vatican is obselete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion as practiced by the Vatican is about power.

    If I was in charge of the world, the Vatican would be carpet-bombed until
    there was nothing left of it but dust.

    Man needs to evolve to a higher state. Organized religion depends on this not
    happening, and for this reason organized religion of ANY flavor needs to disappear.

  114. Not one without the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One has to be a devout catholic to be even thinking about practising such Satanism that include "demonic possessions." Perhaps the real question that the Vatican should ponder is why their followers are inducing hate towards the authoritarian church and themselves as similar parents. Perhaps there is a slight miss connection between the reality of the church and the reality of the children of the catholic parents. Since the catholic news article referenced included a mention of La Santa Muerta as something satanic, perhaps the disconnect of reality is increasing between the rich and the poor as well.

  115. Proudly marching into the Twentieth Century by Alsee · · Score: 2

    The Catholic Church, with one foot proudly marching into the Twentieth Century, scientifically and socially, and one foot firmly planted in the Dark Ages, scientifically and socially.

    The exorcism should, if possible, be carried out with the consent of the possessed person

    Anyone who ties up, restrains, or otherwise threatens an unwilling person for an exorcism ritual is a criminal and should damn well be arrested and imprisoned for it. Just as we'd imprison someone for murder if they tied someone to a stake and burned them as a witch.

    With assistance from four nuns, priest Daniel Corogeanu bound Cornici to a cross, gagged her mouth with a towel, and left her for three days without food or water. The ritual, the priest explained, was an effort to drive devils out of the woman. Cornici was found dead on June 15; an autopsy found she had died of suffocation and dehydration... Maricica Cornici is not the first innocent victim of an exorcism. On August 22, 2003, an autistic eight-year-old boy in Milwaukee was bound in sheets and held down by church members during a prayer service held to exorcise the evil spirits they blamed for his condition. An autopsy found extensive bruising on the back of the child's neck and concluded that he died of asphyxiation. In the past ten years, there have been at least four other exorcism-related deaths in the United States alone

    When an exorcism results in death, the people responsible damn well should be arrested and imprisoned for murder, or manslaughter at minimum.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  116. Business as usual for organized religion by kheldan · · Score: 1

    ..aaaaaand organized religion, like any other authoritarian form of governance would do, is (still) seeking to control people via controlling knowledge.
    NEWSFLASH TO VATICAN: The Genie has already left the bottle. Give up already.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  117. Great, the 80s all over again by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

    Remember the big Satanism scare in the 80s? Sounds like the same thing except now backed by the Vatican. Has anyone ever met or heard of a real, true Satanist? Not goth kids or other silly people, but truly sick individuals?

    By the way, how is this news for nerds?

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Great, the 80s all over again by twosat · · Score: 2

      I work in a library. About 10 years ago one of my co-workers was approached by a customer who complained about our religious book area being "unfair" because there were lots of books about Jesus/God but not many about Satan. In reply, she suggested that to even things out that he should consider writing "The Complete works of Satan". This seemed to quieten him down and get him thinking. That's the only encounter with a Satanist that I know of, probably he was just a bit unbalanced. I have also heard that a lot of Satanists are children of extreme fundamentalists who have rebelled against their religion and have gone to the opposite extreme.

    2. Re:Great, the 80s all over again by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      By the way, how is this news for nerds?

      Because it's a) on the Internet and b) painting an organised religion in a bad light (or can be spun that way), that's why.

  118. Soooo last-millenium.... by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    The United Nations has warned that the internet has fueled a surge in Naziism that has led to a sharp rise in the demand for psychotherapists. 'The internet makes it much easier than in the past to find information about Naziism. In just a few minutes you can contact Nazi groups and research racism,' says Sarah Silverman, a member of the Anne Frank Descendants of Holocaust Survivors Manifesto University in Brooklyn who specializes in the dangers posed to young people by Naziism. Organizers of a six-day conference that has brought together more than 60 psychotherapists as well as NGOs, screen-writers, journalists, teachers and youth workers,co-sponsored by the United Nations Congress for Holocaust Remembrance and the Reparations and the Congress for Psychotherapists say the rise of Naziism has been dangerously underestimated in recent years."

  119. Well yeah by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    God gets them till they are 12. Satan gets them until they are 20.

  120. Re:Back at you. Honestly. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    You forget, the same religion becomes Christianity if you focus on Jesus, Islam if you focus on Mohammed, Judaism if you're still waiting for your prophet. Satanism if you believe the exact same thing but think of Lucifer as your prophet.

    So yeah, you can be a satanist if you are not a Christian, same as you can be Jewish but not Muslim. Not arguing with the rest.

  121. Not sure if troll by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

    or just very catholic.

  122. Nope Sorry by TerryT · · Score: 1

    Christianity and it's beliefs are the only thing which promotes(acknowledges) "Satanism". "Satanism" is directly derivative of that specific Religious Dogma. The free and unrestricted sharing of information has ever been an anathema to certain religious organizations, especially those which place more value in the rules of that specific "Church" more than it does in the teaching of the religious teachings(Holy Book/Scriptures) they claim to hold holy. The more information available to the layperson, the more apt they are to be able to recognize that "The Emperor Wears No Clothes".

  123. Old enemies. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    It is called freedom of cult and freedom of speech. None of them being things the Catholic Church ever managed to adapt to.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  124. My stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Satanas imperavi in eterniam amen.
    Hail satan. We are your slaves.

    In your face, fucking stupid idiotic pope.

  125. I thought Satan was inherited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Satan came from the Roman mythology -- Christianity has always adapted to the locals (the one about statues overlooking the city being remade into saints comes to mind...) and in the early days Rome had HUGE influence (aside from being involved in the Crucifixion.) Christmas day is a pagan holiday not actually the real birth date; look it up - it actually goes even further than that; I've heard plenty about how Satan and Hell developed later on - their usefulness is obvious.

    I don't know why people somehow think primitive uncivilized societies of superstitious illiterates were even capable of securely maintaining proper records (short of burring stone tablets and forgetting them...remember the illiterate part..)

    1. Re:I thought Satan was inherited by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I thought Satan came from the Roman mythology -- Christianity has always adapted to the locals

      Read Job to learn about Satan's role in Judaism. He's kind of like a heavenly prosecutor who decided that he'll exact punishment while searching for evidence. "I bet you hid drugs in your Ming vase" *smash* "I bet you hid drugs in your couch cushions!" *slash* "I bet you hid drugs in your dog" *slash*

  126. exorcisms? by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 2

    The power of the internet compels you!

  127. Not again... by supersloshy · · Score: 1

    Yet another article that blows what the Church says WAY out of proportion. It's like the only purpose of these articles it to laugh at them. It's true that there's an increased demand for exorcists and that the Internet is the cause, is it not? Why is this Slashdot worthy? It's not. It only is because some immature brats on here that hate on the Church love to laugh at it and take their statements way out of proportion. I feel sorry for all of you, really.

    --
    "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
  128. Why the religious intolerance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it "OK" to lash out and persecute people subscribing to one religious belief -- Satanism -- but not other religious beliefs -- Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc?

  129. The Catholic Internet Filter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps we can expect one in the future?

  130. Re:Sex scandal = Satan exists within Catholic Chur by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Darwin + BSD Daemon mascot proves that Apple is the true source of the devil. The Vatican got it all wrong!

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  131. Knowledge is a step in the path towards wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The negative focus of the Vatican to highlight 'the competition' is short-sighted as only the lack of honesty on the part of the 'possessed' or those that are part of that persons family/friend dynamic, which I would speculate would include some rather dysfunctional and codependent 'relationships'.

    Pope Benedict should be taking this time to highlight that the internet has also made available such a large collection of subjective history, including scripture that exists between that Nag Hamaddi Texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which the church had previously been responsible for the collection and burning of such scripture. Nevermind all things science from medicine, psychology (and I mean the true aspects of it and not so much some of the coddling and over-medicating but the understanding that comes from psychological studies that enables one to make behavioral changes).

    This is disappointing that this is his focus, which though I'm not suggesting this is the pope's implication, in the extreme would be advocating an attempt to control knowledge, which history shows the church has falied at numerous times.

  132. When the internet is outlawed... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

    Only Satanists will have internet.

    Wow, that really doesn't work does it?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  133. Reality by molecule1 · · Score: 2

    Reality Warns That Vatican Promotes Child Sexual Abuse By Clergy

  134. Re: "My invisible friend.... by walter_f · · Score: 1

    ...is good. Yours is evil.

    I like that.

    Id like it even better if it could changed a bit:

    "My invisible friend is good.
    If yours is different he/she has to be evil." ... with the optional addition of:
    [murmuring] "Just where did I put these matches?"

  135. How big is that "bunch"? by khasim · · Score: 1

    There's a whole bunch of people who call themselves Satanists who really don't actually believe in Christ (or even actually Satan) for that matter.

    So what they do believe in does not have a name of its own? Or is this "bunch" just a few teenagers going through their angst phase?

    If a group can appropriate the name of someone they don't believe in and use it in their religion, I would think that its certainly possible for others to follow the teachings of that same entity and call him something else, or even deny his existence entirely.

    While they CAN take the name of a heresy of a religion they don't believe in ... WHY would they do that?

    And that has nothing to do with your other statement. It is POSSIBLE to follow the tenets of some religion that you were previously unaware ... it's just extremely unlikely unless that religion is VERY relaxed about their tenets.

    Okay, well, that's probably too much for someone who doesn't actually believe in God to bother with, but I think its important to realize that there is an entire set of logical premises out there that you accept if you are actually a Catholic.

    I would argue the "logical" part of that. What's the current status of "Limbo" in Catholic doctrine?

    The system is not even internally logical. Which is why so many concepts such as "Limbo" have to be invented and then discarded.

    1. Re:How big is that "bunch"? by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      So what they do believe in does not have a name of its own? Or is this "bunch" just a few teenagers going through their angst phase?

      While they CAN take the name of a heresy of a religion they don't believe in ... WHY would they do that?

      Well, having never been an atheist Satanist, I don't know all of them, but I suspect there are a lot of reasons for it. Mostly rhetorical, I imagine. Consider that LaVey's Church of Satan are actually atheists:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan

      These people may or may not actually be what the Church considers to be "Satanists". Since they purport to be a church and use Satan's name, even if they say they deny Satan's very existence, they probably qualify,

      The system is not even internally logical. Which is why so many concepts such as "Limbo" have to be invented and then discarded.

      I'm not sure what you are getting at. Limbo has never been a dogma of the Catholic Church.

      "While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which Catholics are free to accept or reject." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo which cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    2. Re:How big is that "bunch"? by eriqk · · Score: 1

      Or is this "bunch" just a few teenagers going through their angst phase?

      Yes, for a sufficiently broad definition of "teenager".

    3. Re:How big is that "bunch"? by mjwx · · Score: 1
      Fairly large, most Satanists use Anton Zsandor LeVay's Satanic Bible as a guide. The Satanic Bible is not a scripture or instruction manual for life, if it is to teach you one lesson, that lesson is to think for yourself.

      So what they do believe in does not have a name of its own?

      No god or other deity.

      Satanism is more a rejection of Christian like controls over our own lives. To do as one wishes to and not to appease some mythical creature.

      Many people's interpretations of the Satanic Bible are different. It's meant to be and this is what makes it different from organised religion. There are no set rules, dogma or rituals, the words "Thou Shalt" and "Thou Shalt not" aren't used a lot in that book.

      While they CAN take the name of a heresy of a religion they don't believe in ... WHY would they do that?

      Because it's a rejection of the kind of hypocrisy and control that it represents.

      You've read too much into a single word and became fixated on it's meaning according to you. Go ask a Christian, Jew and Muslim, "who is god". You'll get three different answers despite the three talking about the exact same (mythical) entity.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:How big is that "bunch"? by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

      Consider that LaVey's Church of Satan are actually atheists

      Deliciously ironic: Anton LaVey died on October 29, 1997, in St. Mary's Medical Center in San Francisco of pulmonary edema.[13] He was taken to St. Mary's, a Catholic hospital, because it was the closest available.

      Guy looked like a dick, incidentally. If you're going to lead a cult, try not to look like such a walking cliche.

      --
      licet differant, aequabitur
    5. Re:How big is that "bunch"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deliciously ironic: Anton LaVey died on October 29, 1997, in St. Mary's Medical Center in San Francisco of pulmonary edema.[13] He was taken to St. Mary's, a Catholic hospital, because it was the closest available.

      Do you have reading comprehension problems, or did you refuse to read past the part you originally made in bold text? Deliciously ironic, for sure.

  136. A "troll" religion? by khasim · · Score: 1

    I think most satanists call themselves satanists because they enjoy trolling (I enjoy trolling too, so it's not a criticism).

    So the "religion" is named as it is to troll members of a different religion that they don't believe in any way.

    I don't think trolling counts as a "religion".

    If you meet a satanist, it is unlikely she actually believes in the Judeo-Christian idea of satan.

    Quite correct. And to be more correct, she probably got into that "religion" because it offended Mom and Dad who didn't understand her any way. She was raised kind-of-Christian and when she went through her rebel phase she started hanging out with the group who claimed to be following the most famous rebel bad-boy that she had heard of. Even though their "religion" is whatever they saw in the movies or on this really cool TV show where the cute witch-girl was wearing this really awesome black lace outfit and ...

    Yeah, you get the idea.

    1. Re:A "troll" religion? by thanasakis · · Score: 1

      I don't think trolling counts as a "religion".

      And yet it is being adhered to with religious devotion by many slashdoters :)

    2. Re:A "troll" religion? by Creedo · · Score: 1

      So the "religion" is named as it is to troll members of a different religion that they don't believe in any way.

      I don't think trolling counts as a "religion".

      I'm glad we have someone like you around to clear up exactly what everyone else gets to claim as a religion.

      Quite correct. And to be more correct, she probably got into that "religion" because it offended Mom and Dad who didn't understand her any way. She was raised kind-of-Christian and when she went through her rebel phase she started hanging out with the group who claimed to be following the most famous rebel bad-boy that she had heard of. Even though their "religion" is whatever they saw in the movies or on this really cool TV show where the cute witch-girl was wearing this really awesome black lace outfit and ...

      Yeah, you get the idea.

      Wow, not only do you get to be the Religion Police, you even get to paint caricatures of those who hold beliefs that don't meet with your strict "True Religion" criteria!

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  137. Seriously??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, seems like we're ready for another inquisition cum witch hunt. So whose got the matches and where are all the evil females lurking to do Satan's bidding. Its the 21st century FFS - does anyone seriously take religion and particularly the Catholic Church seriously?

  138. Worse than That by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    The internet warns that the Vatican is head of a global brainwashing organization that has committed millions of heinous acts of genocide, torture, and murder over its history, to say nothing of theft, extortion and corruption.

    1. Re:Worse than That by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      my apologies to all Roman Catholics, I forgot the thousands of child molestations.

  139. The Roman Catholic Church promotes pedophilia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually the Roman Catholic Church promotes pedophilia. Stupidity just comes along with pedophilia for the ride.

  140. Where to track news on Cults (including Satanism) by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    Go to http://cultnews.net/. Reporting on cults you've never even heard of, all over the world. As a plus, they also follow cult films and actors, so you can hear about William Shatner as well. Enjoy!

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  141. Satanism? So what? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    "So if you call God your Father, live your time as temporary residents on earth in fear. He is the God who judges all people by what they have done, and he doesn't play favorites."
    - 1 Peter 1:17

    "You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"
    - Matthew 7:16

    Why should we see Satanism as a problem? What are these Satanists doing that is so dangerous?

    I dig that they are violating cmds 1, 2, 3 or 1, 2, 4 (depending on your set), but are those really fruit-bearing or acts-related stuff? Now, if they're sacrificing people or something, yeah, that's a problem. But just being Satanists isn't that big an issue. In a court of law based strictly on the new testament, without further evidence, I think I could get them off.

    I'm obviously being a little facetious. The point, though, is that saying "Satanism! Boogah BOogah Boogha!" is not a very compelling call to arms. Show me what they have done, show me the fruits they have borne, if you want to get me concerned. I suspect modern Satanism is a lot like most other modern religions -- periodic cosplay with no significant impact on most practitioners daily behavior.

  142. WWJT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would Jesus type? MILF?

  143. Word swap by allain68 · · Score: 1

    If one changes all the occurrences of "Satanism" and "Occultism" to "pedophilia" and "child abuse" the article makes more sense.

    --
    Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and eating our food through a straw!
  144. No, the Church didn't say that. by rac44 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It must be the silly season for the Telegraph newspaper: the Vatican didn't say anything about satanism.

    The statement didn't come from any Church office, or any cardinal, bishop, or spokesman for the Church. The speaker, Carlo Climati, is a journalist who spoke at a conference at the Catholic university where he works in Rome.

    Some reporters can't tell the difference between an official church spokesman and Some Guy in Rome, or even Some Priest in Rome, but what do you expect from the press: distinctions? We don't need no stinking distinctions!

    Besides, the guy's probably right! If the net has made communication and collaboration easier for jihadist bombers, white supremacists, Democrats, and other horrible people, who's to say it didn't help satanists too?

    1. Re:No, the Church didn't say that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True.

      Also, was there something I missed in TFA that said the Church somehow said the internet was BAD because of this? The first article merely says the internet makes it easier. The second one never mentions the internet at all. Some people are reading a little too much into the headline. Besides, it's not like the Pope has never mentioned the internet before.

  145. Serial ATA is not evil...honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with religion it only works on people willing to believe all sorts of shit that just aint so.

    The vatican is being marginalized due to their failure to effectivly compete with the sheer volume of shit that just aint so on the Internet.

  146. Keeping control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing religion does is impose a control on people.We , at least here in Quebec , learned it the hard way.
    Churches are empty and noone cares about what the Vatican thinks.They were there to get our money, but now that there are hard times , they wont give a cent to keep their churches opened.It's not about a hypothetical God , It's just about money and power and giving the richest of the rich more control over the people.Down with religions.They are the instrument of our slavery !. Wake up.

  147. They be trollin by Cazekiel · · Score: 0

    Lol. I love the shit the Vatican worries about. People starving to death while their coffers fill to max capacity? Their own legion of pervy-clergy touching innocent kids inappropriately? Nope, let's fret about the internet. After all, that's where we HEAR about their OWN criminal behavior.

    Trolls.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
  148. Zombie Jesus Demands Sacrifice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sacrifice one goatse each fortnight

  149. The FBI by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    I could find not official link to the FBI report though I recall reading it at that time.

    http://www.rickross.com/reference/satanism/satanism1.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

    Know evil by what it produces.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  150. LaVey did that to get laid. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Consider that LaVey's Church of Satan are actually atheists:

    LeVey created the "Church of Satan" as an easy way to attract women so he could get laid more.

    "Satan" in that context is 100% marketing.
    And the product being sold is rebellion and hedonism.

    I'm not sure what you are getting at. Limbo has never been a dogma of the Catholic Church.

    Yet, from the very Wikipedia page you linked to ...

    In the theology of the Catholic Church, Limbo (Latin limbus, edge or boundary, referring to the "edge" of Hell) is a speculative idea about the afterlife condition of those who die in original sin without being assigned to the Hell of the damned.

    Come on. It was the VERY FIRST LINE in that paragraph.

    1. Re:LaVey did that to get laid. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      LeVey created the "Church of Satan" as an easy way to attract women so he could get laid more.

      "Satan" in that context is 100% marketing.
      And the product being sold is rebellion and hedonism.

      And I am sure that's exactly why he did it. He could well have thought of that on his own without any prompting. Its my understanding that people are capable of being evil on their own. They don't need Satan to do it. Having said that, there's also nothing about that explanation that eliminates the idea from being planted by Satan either. It's not like any one believes Satan walks up to people and says: "Hey, Satan here. Form a church for me, okay? Thanks." He has always been presented as the guy who plants ideas.

      As for the Limbo thing, I think you misunderstand. I wasn't trying to prove it wasn't something that many Catholics believed individually, I am pointing out that it was never an authoritative teaching of the Church. Theologians can speculate about things, but they can't present those ideas as dogma without a lot of process. Limbo was a speculation by some theologians that was popular at one point. Using Limbo as an example of a lack of logic doesn't really advance the point since it was never anything more than speculation to begin with. Anything that is not dogma has always been considered to be disposable by the Church much like any other scholarly idea might be.

  151. Where are all these Satanists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In surveys of religious affiliation, Satanists simply don't appear. I have never met anyone who declared themselves a Satanist, or whom I would remotely suspect of being one. Among those of us who declare ourselves "non-religious", I have never met anyone who didn't consider Satanism even more ridiculous than Christianity; so I'm fairly sure they don't come from my 16% of the U.S. population. Likewise for the Christians, Jews, Hindus, and down the line. I know that the Vatican is not big on the concept of "evidence", but I'd really like to see some, here.

  152. Religion Will Eventually Be Gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion has killed, maimed, tortured, raped, stifled scientific progress, controlled politics and generally fucked up way too many lives over too many years.

    The time to end religion has long passed. As Arthur C. Clarke predicted in a book, one day religion will be outlawed on Earth for the betterment of everyone.

    Fuck you religion, fuck you very much.

    If you need a fake deity (God, Mohammad, etc.) to pray too, you are weak of mind and gullible. Full stop.
    If you believe that the Earth, nay, the Universe is about 6,000 years old, then you are weak of mind and gullible. Full stop.
    Religions were created to control people. Full stop.

    Science does not lie, religion does.

  153. GTFO by Dragon_Punch · · Score: 0

    THe Internet provides free speech. From every point of view. Hail satan..

    --
    Pylons?
  154. The Holy Fucking See by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Holy See can go fuck himself as a young boy.

  155. What? by khasim · · Score: 1

    Its my understanding that people are capable of being evil on their own.

    What does that have to do with LeVey? LeVey did it for marketing. What "evil" has LeVey's "church" done?

    I wasn't trying to prove it wasn't something that many Catholics believed individually, I am pointing out that it was never an authoritative teaching of the Church.

    No, I understand that completely.

    My point is that Catholicism is SO INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT that such ideas as "Limbo" have to be continually created and discarded BY THE CATHOLICS THEMSELVES in attempts to resolve the logical flaws.

    Whether those concepts are ever formally institutionalized by the Pope is immaterial.

    Using Limbo as an example of a lack of logic doesn't really advance the point since it was never anything more than speculation to begin with.

    You are wrong. It is valid because it illustrates the flaws in the internal logic of Catholicism. Even the Catholics cannot resolve the logical flaws in their BELIEF SYSTEM. Which is particularly telling because belief systems require a degree of illogic to participate in.

  156. Where did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all of this talk of satan start from? This this what you call my bad?

  157. Re:Sex scandal = Satan exists within Catholic Chur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's really comical, considering that the Catholic church is one of the primary parts of the anti-Christ.

  158. In Soviet Russia... by pr0t3uS · · Score: 1

    ...You rape the church...

    OK i know... old joke... sorry for that...

    On the more serious side - i think that the church is complaining about the fact that the Bible is not the only book available to read for people anymore and for the first time in Christian history people do have a choice to choose which philosophy/spirituality/religion they want to follow. Free will must be the work of Satan.
    Also the priests have easier access to internet porn and since they can not be bad the Satan seduces them. Maybe Pope is possessed also since he promotes sex without condoms which should be considered a crime against humanity for various reasons.
    OTOH exorcism is Christian church's domain so maybe they are just promoting their business.

  159. Does the church really have exorcists? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    Out of all the most insanely ridiculous things I've ever heard of, this has got to be the best. I always thought it was a medieval poet's invention. What does an exorcist actually do? Do they have songs and dances and stuff that go with it? How do you know when it's done? Like, how would you measure how successful an exorcism was? Would the victim no longer be homosexual?

    Can we get a list of people who have sent letters to the church asking for the services of exorcists? It would be a great mailing list for people selling beach front swamp land and such. :)

  160. Re:Sex scandal = Satan exists within Catholic Chur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And two, in Japan, Satan wouldn't have used his tentacles on the priests brains, but on the children directly. Uh oh, am I going to hell for that one?

    Not specifically...

  161. Well, duh. Who do you think bill@microsoft is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, I thought it said "Internet Explorer promotes satanism". Never mind.

  162. They just want control over the internet thats all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't worship the devil. Stupid paranoid people in Rome! back off EU and the Vatican you people should concentrate on yes kid's not adult's we have our own lives to run thank you very much! Also control is not the answer its the parent's! So if you want to blame society blame the parent's who can't take any of Responsibility of there messed up children! Jeez so don't go and try blaming the net as well as Television. Blame it on the parent's like I will say over and over again! Just look around Kids/Teen's will imitate what they hear from there friend's on Face Book or perhaps the school there attending. Be smarter then people will understand you better EU & Rome. We don't want to see control! I have enough to deal with with OB trying to give more right's to Muslims oh sorry radical Muslim's etc. But this is getting a little more paranoid with the EU getting involved with the American Churches in this country.

  163. In nomine Satanis, Magna Veritas. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In nomine Satanis, Magna Veritas.

  164. Ignore these people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does the media give these loons such a lot of air-time? Any other group saying something like that wouldn't even get into the raggiest tabloids. They should be marginalised and ignored.

  165. a little healthy competition is always good :) by doperative · · Score: 1

    Saddam: Did you miss me, buttercup?
    Satan: No, it can't be! You're dead! I killed you!

  166. Some people say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the world would be better place without religion. Me? I say humor makes the world a better place, and the world just got a little better thanks to this artical. But on a less serious note, its burns when i pee and weird fluids are coming out of my penis, does my penis need an exorcist? I do? Little less serious now, god and Satan walk into a bar to have a few drinks. god orders a Bloody Mary, and Satan laughs, god asks "what is so funny" Satan replies " remember when Mary told you she didn't know how she got pregnant?"...little more serious now, back in high school a child("classmate") asked me "if God isn't real then where do rainbows come from?" Now, due to drug use I don't remember much of what was taught in public school but at some point we had to go over general physics and light spectrum. So obviously religion has hindered this poor child's ability to use logic and shall grow up and believe that God is an almighty power that controls everything and therefore no reason to explain anything, this is terribly wrong please i beg of you teach your children physics not religion. pretty God D*** F***ing please with a bloody mary on top, teach physics not religion!

  167. Satan and Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Satan actually existed, he would regard the world's religions as his most successful creation.

  168. Re:Sex scandal = Satan exists within Catholic Chur by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    Not true; Satan cannot control people as we all have free will. He tempts; you choose to do as he suggests. The Church cannot (and does not) use that excuse as it directly contradicts its own teachings.

    (Disclaimer: I'm not a Christian, but that's what I understand from what little I do know about it)

  169. Re:Sex scandal = Satan exists within Catholic Chur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .were proof that the anti-Christ was waging a war against the Holy See.

    does anyone else recognize the fact that, in other circumstances, someone stating this would be locked up and put on meds?

    Why do you get a free pass from crazyville for spouting nonsense just because you happen to follow one specific cult?

  170. Sluggy Freelance knew it years ago by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Its very FIRST strip in 1997 tells it like it is: http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=970825

  171. My favourite part ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    The object of seminars was to scrutinise the phenomenon of Satanism with "seriousness and scientific rigour"

    Let me guess ... they decided AGAINST applying "scientific rigour" to the rest of their belief system.

  172. Hmmm, not so fast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've personally observed people's heads spinning around and self abuse with crucifixes when their favourite web site didn't load for some reason.

    And I've read many stories on the internet of clandestine groups of men dressed in robes, gathering together to practice arcane rituals which apparently involve molesting children. Oh wait...

  173. Attack on Satanism by xavierwyvern · · Score: 1

    If I recall (it has been a while) that in the Bible that "God" killed 2,476,633 as opposed to the devil's 10. So in theory who should be the one that's being worshiped here?

  174. Thanks Vatican! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

    But it's widely known that every fucking thing that CAN be promoted on the Internet, well, IS.

    Now go back to smacking choir boys.

  175. In just a few minutes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In just a few minutes you can contact Catholic groups and research Jesus. Same difference.

  176. All dentists have perfect teeth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Form, fit and function.

    As soon as I realized this, it was obvious that my next gf should be a gynecologist.

  177. 554 comments.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on people! only 112 comments to go..

  178. Who cares by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    To me its just another religion like scientology that takes itself seriously and all that....
    I say if they pay their taxes, then let them do what they want, unless they try to do harm to to others but themselves....
    if they stick the the laws we are all bound by, then who cares?

  179. Only at 555 comments so far by doccus · · Score: 1

    still .. waiting for 666 comments :-) probably included as a /. article because we all know Jobs is the antichrist ... hey he did sell the first mac for.. wait for it now.. $666

    1. Re:Only at 555 comments so far by doccus · · Score: 1

      sorry i meant first apple ()humble pie).. thot i better correct myself b4 some1 else does

  180. I worship Satan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Satan is my white cat with blue eyes that shine red in the light, who loves to drink Duvel with me every once in a while and listens to bands like King Diamond and Mercyful Fate, as well as many other heavy metal, black metal, and death metal bands.

    But really... I own a copy of The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey and have read through it. If I had to describe it, it would be "common sense." Seriously, I found it surprising that as I read it, I kept thinking, "holy shit--I always felt and thought this way." I kept feeling this way throughout much of the book. What got me interested in Satanism aside from information about it on *gasp* the Internet was curiosity, because Christians think it's such a bad thing and all about devil worshiping (which it's not) blah blah blah, plus getting into King Diamond's music several years ago after my cousin introduced me to the band and I read interviews of him explaining that he is a Satanist and what it means to him. Now, while I don't specifically consider myself to have a religion, I can safely say that if I belong to any... it's Satanism.

    [Okay, the cat-drinking-Duvel part was an obvious and poor joke, and the cat doesn't choose to put the music on, but oh well...]

  181. Say what you will about Satan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say what you will about Satan; but Satan never stretched his ass open and posted the photo on the internet.

  182. It's all true by kalirion · · Score: 1

    This is one of the first things I came across while surfing the web back in high school.

    Of course it doesn't really promote Satanism, but whatever, close enough :)

  183. Warning, teh innertubes is full of 'tards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Danger Will Robinson.

  184. Beware ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the internet. I must warn you that the Vatican promotes catholicism.

    Protect your children !

  185. criminal charges against the pope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell it to Dr. Ratzinger, "when he gets out of jail"!!>>http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/criminal-charges-against-the-pope/