Patrick Walberg wrote:
Evil rag, huh?

In the 4 years I've lived in the UK, one developed a certain taste for "just the facts, ma'am ". 

Znude! wrote:
Not the same at all but here's a crazy case for you.

https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/crim … b483874aeb

Burned the alter?  They couldn’t just wipe it down with a disinfectant and wash the linens?  I am really curious which verses in the Bible indicate that the sex acts between consenting adults becomes ingrained as evil in inanimate objects.  Jeez, why didn’t they burn the entire church?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Burned the alter?  They couldn’t just wipe it down with a disinfectant and wash the linens?  I am really curious which verses in the Bible indicate that the sex acts between consenting adults becomes ingrained as evil in inanimate objects.  Jeez, why didn’t they burn the entire church?

St. Steven's cathedral here in Vienna actually sports a huge peen and a vulva, next to the gargoyles in stone, both beside the main gate, since marriage was supposed to lead to offspring and such... the only one in the world to have that kind of ornament, far as I know. Heavily Catholic and all.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Burned the alter?  They couldn’t just wipe it down with a disinfectant and wash the linens?  I am really curious which verses in the Bible indicate that the sex acts between consenting adults becomes ingrained as evil in inanimate objects.  Jeez, why didn’t they burn the entire church?

In regards to burning the entire church it's the difference between being insured and self insured.

Dea and the Beast wrote:
Admittedly The Mirror is an evil, evil rag..

Take the story with a grain of salt, the Mirror is the British equivalent of the National Enquirer

Znude! wrote:
In regards to burning the entire church it's the difference between being insured and self insured.

This priest had sex on the alter with two paid partners and they burned the alter.  What did they burn each time a pedophilia priest raped a child?  I ask just for a sense of perspective.  It seems that if priests rape innocent children, not only does the church furniture survive and continue to serve the good people of the church, but there is also ample reason to ignore the harm to the children and get on with church business.  It seems like there is a significant difference in the evil of having sex with bondage between willing partners and all of the other sexual exploits and rape that occur within the broader church and it is surprising which action causes the greater consternation. 

If the charges are vandalism with damages between 500 and 50000, then burning the church would have increased the charges.  (It would seem the damage is completely the responsibility of the church due to a lopsided response to sex on the premises.)

I know you aren't privy to the answers- there is much to be aghast about concerning the reaction of the church hierarchy and the DA in the story you linked.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
This priest had sex on the alter with two paid partners and they burned the alter.  What did they burn each time a pedophilia   priest raped a child?  I ask just for a sense of perspective.  It seems that if priests rape innocent children, not only does the church furniture survive and continue to serve the good people of the church, but there is also ample reason to ignore the harm to the children and get on with church business.  It seems like there is a significant difference in the evil of having sex with bondage between willing partners and all of the other sexual exploits and rape that occur within the broader church and it is surprising which action causes the greater consternation. 

If the charges are vandalism with damages between 500 and 50000, then burning the church would have increased the charges.  (It would seem the damage is completely the responsibility of the church due to a lopsided response to sex on the premises.)

I know you aren't privy to the answers- there is much to be aghast about concerning the reaction of the church hierarchy and the DA in the story you linked.

I'm the last person that would want to defend the church.   However I suspect that burning the altar was more of a practical decision.

The altar would be a very central part and the center of attention during each church proceeding.  And do they want their parishioners thinking about those "infamous" altar events whenever they look at it / attend church?  Do they want it to be pointed out on all those tourist walking tours?  What good is the altar moved elsewhere where it would still be the center of sordid folklore and legend?   Sadly it's the type of story that's more likely to "stick" than many of the more horrific things that have happened.

And unlike the fallout of the other, much more serious events, It's relatively easy to just destroy one altar (symbolically burn it) and build something new.

LightDreams wrote:
I'm the last person that would want to defend the church.   However I suspect that burning the altar was more of a practical decision.

The altar would be a very central part and the center of attention during each church proceeding.  And do they want their parishioners thinking about those "infamous" altar events whenever they look at it / attend church?  Do they want it to be pointed out on all those tourist walking tours?  What good is the altar moved elsewhere where it would still be the center of sordid folklore and legend?   Sadly it's the type of story that's more likely to "stick" than many of the more horrific things that have happened.

And unlike the fallout of the other, much more serious events, It's relatively easy to just destroy one altar (symbolically burn it) and build something new.

Okay.  That is rational, but it is a teaching that would be inconsistent with Christianity. 

Romans 3: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Jesus ate and drank with notable sinners of the time, including prostitutes and tax collectors.  He did not cast them out.  He was more likely to cast out the religious leaders of the time because the lowly sinners were more likely to have accepted their sins and asked for forgiveness then the mighty who justified their sins.  The church's action is to condemn the prostitutes.

If the church burns an inanimate object because it was used in a sin, then how does that reflect on sinners and the treatment they should receive from the members of the church?  The act regarding the alter was notorious.  Does that mean that the sinner that sins privately should be ignored in the presence of believers, but the one that has committed a notorious sin should be cast out like the alter?  Or the innocents affected by the sin, such as a convicted criminal's family?  They, like the alter, had no choice in the actions of the sinner. 

To me, the burning of the alter is a rejection of the forgiveness of God.  If the alter must be put aside, then what have they done to the sinner?  Furthermore, they have created financial damages which can then be used against the participants in a criminal proceeding- isn't this effectively bearing false witness against the people?


Jude 1: 23   Save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.

2 Peter 3: 9. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Romans 5: 6&c  For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

and so on.

One would hope that if perception is the problem, then perception is also the solution.  But if there was no redemption for the alter, then where do they illustrate the redemption for the sinner?  John 3:16 &c. 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

I can imagine a future preacher pointing to that alter and saying, "Once this alter was used in an act of sin, but it continues to serve the Lord.  Likewise, each sinner among us, which includes each of us, is still a being that can be forgiven by the sacrifice of Christ and serve the Lord."  Instead of the current hierarchy's implication that the person can "burn in hell."

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

This priest had sex on the alter with two paid partners and they burned the alter.  What did they burn each time a pedophilia priest raped a child?  I ask just for a sense of perspective.  It seems that if priests rape innocent children, not only does the church furniture survive and continue to serve the good people of the church, but there is also ample reason to ignore the harm to the children and get on with church business.  It seems like there is a significant difference in the evil of having sex with bondage between willing partners and all of the other sexual exploits and rape that occur within the broader church and it is surprising which action causes the greater consternation. 

If the charges are vandalism with damages between 500 and 50000, then burning the church would have increased the charges.  (It would seem the damage is completely the responsibility of the church due to a lopsided response to sex on the premises.)

I know you aren't privy to the answers- there is much to be aghast about concerning the reaction of the church hierarchy and the DA in the story you linked.

Of course I was being sarcastic and joking about the difference between burning only the alter and the church. I'm not affiliated in any way with the church or the religion. I just shared a rather crazy story from the local news.

JSouthworth wrote:
Here we see the Russian state aligning itself with the Orthodox church, as opposed to persecuting it as in the early Soviet period.

I'm reminded of this story about an anarchist's conversation with Heinrich Himmler;

https://www.wired.com/2008/07/the-worlds-last/

After about a decade in power, the communists realised than incorporating the church made more sense than exterminating them.

Many communist teachings view religion as a mental illness, this isn't very different to the purely neurological conclusion that people make without adopting Marxism, just simpler and more reductive. A logical compromise has frequently been to moderate the community aspects while steering the flow of information, in the case of religion, making interpretations that are favorable to the state. The unity of the state is more important, especially in a communist system, and so it relies on information. Religions are basically a regulated industry, where the state sends religious leaders/priests/clerics etc. Often times the regulated religious sector is just as big as the noncompliant religious sector, as it is easy to imagine how disagreeable it can for a secular state to control the religion.

Just an evolution I find interesting, not having grown up in those societies.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Many communist teachings view religion as a mental illness, this isn't very different to the purely neurological conclusion that people make without adopting Marxism, just simpler and more reductive. A logical compromise has frequently been to moderate the community aspects while steering the flow of information, in the case of religion, making interpretations that are favorable to the state. The unity of the state is more important, especially in a communist system, and so it relies on information. Religions are basically a regulated industry, where the state sends religious leaders/priests/clerics etc. Often times the regulated religious sector is just as big as the noncompliant religious sector, as it is easy to imagine how disagreeable it can for a secular state to control the religion.

Just an evolution I find interesting, not having grown up in those societies.

The Soviets had a two track approach, on the one hand they imprisoned and executed large numbers of Orthodox clergy and believers in the 1920s and 1930s, especially from the rural areas, and on the other they sought to co-opt Christianity through the Living Church movement. I'm relying here mainly on Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.