Friday, August 28, 2009

Bible Comes in Handy to Justify Pedophilia

The ex-wife of a former youth pastor accused of using his position to form sexual relationships with at least six church members testified Tuesday that she partook in sex acts with her former husband and one of his alleged victims.

John Picard faces 42 counts of sexual battery for allegedly engaging in sexual activity with six girls who attended Grace Brethren Church.

Four of the girls, prosecutors say, were minors.

During the course of his trial, alleged victims have testified that Picard was a controlling man who used his position as pastor, as well as Bible passages, to get them to engage in sexual activity.

Here we have yet another "Christian leader" being morally repugnant. It should no longer surprise anyone. I wonder how many of those other child raping priests and pastors thought to use the Bible to sway their prey and justify their actions? What a fine book that Bible is!


G said...

The book isn't the problem. The problem is in the wickedness and deceitfulness of those who misuse it for their own purposes.

I think I've mentioned before that if a person simply cherry-picks a few passages here and there out of their context, they can probably create a justification for almost anything. That's why it's so important for every Christian to study the Bible in its entirety.

csm said...

Yes, you've mentioned it before. And I've discarded it as a copout before, too.

I agree that every "believer" should read the bible, too. After doing so with an open, intelligent mind it is very hard to continue believing.

G said...

Not really. But if someone just wants to find excuses for not believing something they've already decided against, then they'll be sure to find it.

What makes my statement a "copout"?

csm said...

It is like saying you have to read this entire blog - every entry and comment from day one, first post - in order to not misinterpret this comment. It is absurd.

G said...

Your comparison is absurd, but the concept isn't.

If a person rips a sentence (or sometimes just a phrase) out of its immediate context, it isn't very difficult to corrupt the meaning from its original intent.

Using your example of this blog (a weak comparison): In your first response, you said, "I agree that every 'believer' should read the bible..." By taking that comment out of the immediate context of this thread and the overall context of this blog, one could argue, "See, even csm sees great value in reading the Bible."

Lou said...

"What a fine book that Bible is!"

CSM thinks the Bible is a fine book as well! And since he claims it supports pedophilia, he must support that as well. Geez, that was easy.

csm said...

And equally absurd.

I do believe that believers should read the bible. I don't mind having that restated or having you or anyone quote me on that. I do mind idiots like Lou paraphrasing and extrapolating, but that is another issue.

In this particular case, I agree that the "person" used the bible to claim that people should do things that are not in it (either quoted, or read completely).

That said, the bible does contradict itself in many places. And it is supports slavery and taking multiple wives and keeping women down and...

G said...

Lou made the point quite well, even if you don't like the way he did so. It is incredibly easy to twist statements around when they are taken out of context.

I also understand your view of the Bible. But it is only your viewpoint, not indisputable fact. You may not accept the explanations of the supposed contradictions, but they have all been dealt with at length.

One of the most problematic barriers to understanding the truth of what the Bible communicates is our stubborn preconceptions (both positive and negative). People have a tendency to see evidence for what they already believe.


g, you must remember how csm feels about "blanket statements", in one ear and out the other.

Here is my next blanket statement, Obama's downfall is located in Afghanistan. It has already started and this war will overtake any good(subjective) this man will perform in the rest of his term. If he gets another term it will only be because of the ineptitude of the Republicans.

csm said...

I tend to agree with your opinion on Obama, Bawdy.

And I have no problem with blanket statements that are given as opinions. My problems arise when statements of "fact" are given that are not backed up.

Also, when I quote a portion of the bible, I do not paraphrase it (other than how it has been paraphrased by religious experts when they translated it). If you want to quote anything I say, anywhere on here, feel free. If you paraphrase, or add commentary, then that is your own and attributing it to me is incorrect.

Lou said...

Good Obama will do? Let me know when that begins. He has taken over Auto manufacturing, banking,and working on healthcare. He has a record defecit already and unemployment is at a 25 year high.

Afghanistan will only be part of his undoing. Rather not concentrating on the wars and the economy, he has gone to the age old healthcare issue which is not close to being the most important battle of the moment. Great article on this on American Thinker.

Also read you article on the supposed religious expert. The only reference to to the Bible was by the wife who referenced some obscure reference to David & Jonathan hugging. Hardly makes him an expert but does make him a pervert and them quite gullible.

The bible has nothing to do with it. Atheist on a regular basis use the Bible to justify their arguments just as the perverts do. See it all the time. Liken it to Obama taking the Constitution out of context to satisfy his lust for power.



As far as the "good Obama will do", that is the reason I had the word "subjective" after the phrase in paranthesis. Some think he is doing some good, some do not. I happen to be in the latter bunch, so quit trying to put me in with the former, ok.

If it is proof you want concerning Barney Frank and his involvement in the financial fiasco, all you have to do is Google Frank and Freddie Mac and you will find all the proof you need that Frank supported Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from being audited by the governemnt. As long as poor people were able to get houses and Freddie and Fannie were buying up the worthless loans(and securityzing them), Frank was as happy as a pig in shit. That is how Frank was complicit with Wall Street and all those evil doers.


Oh, and Lou, I for one have never used the Bible to justify anything. Lets just say it goes against my grain.


Since nobody has posted for awhile I don't feel bad in hijacking this thread.

The Supreme Court heard an extremely important case today concerning Citizen United, the partly corporate backed political organization which produced that highly derogative documentary on Hilary Clinton and wanted to air it right before the Democratic National Convention. The case pits Citizen against the Federal Election Commission.

To me the important thing about this case is not Hilary and the movie or campaign finance reform, but the previous precedent judicially placed giving corporations the same Free Speech rights as individuals. Those who have endured my opinions(rantings)in the past know I feel this is a big mistake and has nothing to do with the original intentions of the Founders. All American stockholders of corporations have the right to Free Speech, but corporations aren't individuals and certainly don't have the same motivations as individuals. Hell, the possibilities of having the corporation's wishes at war with the majority of the stockholders isn't far-fetched in the slightest.

The possibility of this Court overturning the decades of corporate equality with the individual are intriguing. Now if only the individual can overcome the heft of the federal government, cast off the "nanny" state...well with the corporate powers wings clipped, that just might be an easier task.


Oh and this is pretty neat too...

FACT CHECK: Obama drops iffy line on health plan

By CALVIN WOODWARD and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers Calvin Woodward And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 7 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The change was subtle, but significant. In his speech to Congress on Wednesday night, President Barack Obama gave a more accurate — and less reassuring — account of the impact of his proposed health care overall than he has done in the past. It went by in a blink.

OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

THE FACTS: Despite this "period," the White House and congressional Democrats have already shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill was actually deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.

Their only-in-Washington reasoning was that they already decided to exempt this so-called "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.

The administration also said that since Obama already included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again.

Even aside from that, the long-term prognosis for the costs of the health care legislation has not been good.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July about evolving health care legislation: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

Hmmm. The federal government not giving us the straight shit about the amount of our money they want to spend on our fucking behalf. Nothing has changed, there hasn't been any fucking change. This is the same goddamn shit I have been hearing from all these bastards my whole fucking life. Change my rosy red ass!

And don't come running to me(and why would you)when you can't find a fucking doctor because the government makes sure the pay is so shitty and the bureaucratic paperwork makes it totally unprofitable. That's right that ugly word again, profit, but that is what makes our system work, profit.

Change my fucking ass!

Lou said...

My favorite line was his plan would be paid for by cutting waste and fraud in medicare/medicaid. I immediately thought....Why wait?, clean it up now!

The first time DC has a plane that is not full of waste and fraud will be the first.

Thanks to the congressmen who called the liar-in-chief just that. His speech was FULL or lies and contradictions about a plan he doesn't even here.

Good thing congress didn't push this thing thru in two weeks during August at the urging of the liar-in-chief.

csm said...

Just happened upon this one again as I was trolling around and working on things here. And I see that I left some christian stupidity unchallenged.

No, g, and no Lou, your example is stupid. It is is easy for me to dispute and dispute it I will. Just read the whole paragraph "Here we have yet another "Christian leader" being morally repugnant. It should no longer surprise anyone. I wonder how many of those other child raping priests and pastors thought to use the Bible to sway their prey and justify their actions? What a fine book that Bible is!" Now unless you are a moron you understand. I do not discount the possibility of Lou being a moron (I know G is not).

So here I have disputed a stupid challenge. Bible fans don't do this. They simply say "read the whole bible to understand" or "that is taken out of context"... sometimes, they might take a specific quote from a completely different section or book, but usually not.