Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict

[markprice]

I agree. What is really strange, and I was rising this issue before, is that the Church is aware of the paedophile practices for more than 1500 years, and it has never done anything to curb them. They have the example of married priests in orthodox church and know there is virtually no paedophilia cases in it. But for some reason they maintain the practice of allowing the monks to work directly with the flock, which obviously includes females and children. The monks are males, who lead the unnatural lifestyle of celibacy, so many of them may be well under influence of some distorted hormonal picture - but this could be seen as the exclusive reason only if the situation was not lasting for so long. For now we have a system, which de-facto delivers the most favourable conditions for committing the acts of paedophilia, and this system shows the property of self-preservation, it tries no matter what to secure these ancient settings. Why? Cannot it indicate that the paedophiles, able to make a career in the church structures, simply control the system and welcome those of their own like to join it? RCC is an obvious child abuse paradise and this is seen on all levels, from the junior level of a priest-molester to the highest level of bishops, cardinals and Pope, which provide a massive cover-up for centuries. Just look at that - the public points to a dangerous paedophile working with the young lads, and the church responds about Lord Jesus, about forgiveness of sins, about the love etc etc. Maybe we just dealing with a paedophile conspiracy, operating under disguise of a religious organisation? There is no other Christian church where the same pattern is so persistent, the issue is absolutely unique to RCC.

That's pretty much it. Southpark covered this issue several years ago. There was a big RCC conference (animated) like the one that formed the Nicene creed; they were debating how to deal with the public view on church child abuse. One younger priest suggested that they all stop raping children. The older bishops etc. laughed at this absurd suggestion and went right back to "business as usual"...I don't think I can find those episodes--it may be a double episode? If anyone could link to it, that would be hilarious.

[aquatus1]

Let's stay on topic.

[mklsgl]

I agree. What is really strange, and I was rising this issue before, is that the Church is aware of the paedophile practices for more than 1500 years, and it has never done anything to curb them. They have the example of married priests in orthodox church and know there is virtually no paedophilia cases in it. But for some reason they maintain the practice of allowing the monks to work directly with the flock, which obviously includes females and children. The monks are males, who lead the unnatural lifestyle of celibacy, so many of them may be well under influence of some distorted hormonal picture - but this could be seen as the exclusive reason only if the situation was not lasting for so long. For now we have a system, which de-facto delivers the most favourable conditions for committing the acts of paedophilia, and this system shows the property of self-preservation, it tries no matter what to secure these ancient settings. Why? Cannot it indicate that the paedophiles, able to make a career in the church structures, simply control the system and welcome those of their own like to join it? RCC is an obvious child abuse paradise and this is seen on all levels, from the junior level of a priest-molester to the highest level of bishops, cardinals and Pope, which provide a massive cover-up for centuries. Just look at that - the public points to a dangerous paedophile working with the young lads, and the church responds about Lord Jesus, about forgiveness of sins, about the love etc etc. Maybe we just dealing with a paedophile conspiracy, operating under disguise of a religious organisation? There is no other Christian church where the same pattern is so persistent, the issue is absolutely unique to RCC.

IMO, "The Law of Unintended Consequences." However, that does not explain the systemic, institutionalized covering up.

[MARAB0D]

IMO, "The Law of Unintended Consequences." However, that does not explain the systemic, institutionalized covering up.

Interestingly enough that paedophilia as a lifestyle was extremely popular in the location and historical period where and when Christianity originated as a religion, in Rome. Some evil tongue may even say that Catholic Apostolic Church was initially a paedophilic conspiracy, which later lost some of its branches to more decent lifestyle. So maybe RCC cannot change without totally destroying itself? It is possible that these today abused boys later make the generation of priests and abuse more boys, while the previously known abusers become bishops, cardinals and even... !If this goes for 2000 years non-stop, then no wonder the system tries to protect itself by covering everything up!

[The Silver Thong]

Interestingly enough that paedophilia as a lifestyle was extremely popular in the location and historical period where and when Christianity originated as a religion, in Rome. Some evil tongue may even say that Catholic Apostolic Church was initially a paedophilic conspiracy, which later lost some of its branches to more decent lifestyle. So maybe RCC cannot change without totally destroying itself? It is possible that these today abused boys later make the generation of priests and abuse more boys, while the previously known abusers become bishops, cardinals and even... !If this goes for 2000 years non-stop, then no wonder the system tries to protect itself by covering everything up!

Yes and another nail in the cough cough crucifix, meant to say coffin but this is far from a dead issue.

On a side note. People please don't blame Atheism for this as if you do ?

[mklsgl]

Interestingly enough that paedophilia as a lifestyle was extremely popular in the location and historical period where and when Christianity originated as a religion, in Rome. Some evil tongue may even say that Catholic Apostolic Church was initially a paedophilic conspiracy, which later lost some of its branches to more decent lifestyle. So maybe RCC cannot change without totally destroying itself? It is possible that these today abused boys later make the generation of priests and abuse more boys, while the previously known abusers become bishops, cardinals and even... !If this goes for 2000 years non-stop, then no wonder the system tries to protect itself by covering everything up!

Would you find it a stretch to assert that the Romans "borrowed" that lifestyle from the Greeks? Granted, of course, is that it was considered "normal" at that time. Thus, the huge problematic was manifested when what was "normal" became "abnormal." Right?

I don't know the statistics, but it is not terribly uncommon for victims to become abusers, perpetuating the cycle. Obviously, this is not unique to the church or any single institution...

It is of some significance that the RCC, specifically the Pope himself, has directly apologized to several victims. Though, as that famous philosopher said, "Necessary, but not sufficient."

[MARAB0D]

Would you find it a stretch to assert that the Romans "borrowed" that lifestyle from the Greeks? Granted, of course, is that it was considered "normal" at that time. Thus, the huge problematic was manifested when what was "normal" became "abnormal." Right?

I don't know the statistics, but it is not terribly uncommon for victims to become abusers, perpetuating the cycle. Obviously, this is not unique to the church or any single institution...

It is of some significance that the RCC, specifically the Pope himself, has directly apologized to several victims. Though, as that famous philosopher said, "Necessary, but not sufficient."

Personally I do not think the Greeks are to be blamed. Both Romans and Greeks were of one the same Hellenic culture and Rome was officially considered a colony of the Ionian town of Ilion (Troy), two cities were admitting each other's dual citizenship by birth, so any Roman was a citizen of Troy and vice versa any citizen of Ilion was a citizen of Rome. Hellenes were the newcomers to the area, as they became noticeable in it only during Trojan War times, 1100s BC - so they only accepted the already existing customs of the locals, and among these locals Phoenicians were a predominant cultural group, which was controlling the entire Mediterranean area. I know that in 6th century BC paedophilia was equally wide spread and legal in Athens and Sparta, this is mentioned by Plutarch in biographies of Licurgus and Solon. In Rome it was a later fashion as before 2nd century BC this custom was seen as disgusting, but since Greece was conquered and named a province of Achaia and the Punes were defeated and Carthage destroyed, Romans accepted this too - at least Julius Caesar was sexually abused when he was 13 or 14, and this was in early 1st century BC when he visited Nikodemus of Syria, the fact of this abuse was seen only as a subject of political jokes, not as a felony (soldiers were singing of this in satirical rhymes during his triumph). I really allow for RCC to be still dragging this ancient tradition onwards!

[mklsgl]

Personally I do not think the Greeks are to be blamed. Both Romans and Greeks were of one the same Hellenic culture and Rome was officially considered a colony of the Ionian town of Ilion (Troy), two cities were admitting each other's dual citizenship by birth, so any Roman was a citizen of Troy and vice versa any citizen of Ilion was a citizen of Rome. Hellenes were the newcomers to the area, as they became noticeable in it only during Trojan War times, 1100s BC - so they only accepted the already existing customs of the locals, and among these locals Phoenicians were a predominant cultural group, which was controlling the entire Mediterranean area. I know that in 6th century BC paedophilia was equally wide spread and legal in Athens and Sparta, this is mentioned by Plutarch in biographies of Licurgus and Solon. In Rome it was a later fashion as before 2nd century BC this custom was seen as disgusting, but since Greece was conquered and named a province of Achaia and the Punes were defeated and Carthage destroyed, Romans accepted this too - at least Julius Caesar was sexually abused when he was 13 or 14, and this was in early 1st century BC when he visited Nikodemus of Syria, the fact of this abuse was seen only as a subject of political jokes, not as a felony (soldiers were singing of this in satirical rhymes during his triumph). I really allow for RCC to be still dragging this ancient tradition onwards!

You just amaze me sometimes, Mara! When you 'bring it' with Ancient Cultures, I am uber-impressed.

Have you read The Name of the Rose (Umberto Eco)? Or seen the film?

[+Sherapy]

Personally I do not think the Greeks are to be blamed. Both Romans and Greeks were of one the same Hellenic culture and Rome was officially considered a colony of the Ionian town of Ilion (Troy), two cities were admitting each other's dual citizenship by birth, so any Roman was a citizen of Troy and vice versa any citizen of Ilion was a citizen of Rome. Hellenes were the newcomers to the area, as they became noticeable in it only during Trojan War times, 1100s BC - so they only accepted the already existing customs of the locals, and among these locals Phoenicians were a predominant cultural group, which was controlling the entire Mediterranean area. I know that in 6th century BC paedophilia was equally wide spread and legal in Athens and Sparta, this is mentioned by Plutarch in biographies of Licurgus and Solon. In Rome it was a later fashion as before 2nd century BC this custom was seen as disgusting, but since Greece was conquered and named a province of Achaia and the Punes were defeated and Carthage destroyed, Romans accepted this too - at least Julius Caesar was sexually abused when he was 13 or 14, and this was in early 1st century BC when he visited Nikodemus of Syria, the fact of this abuse was seen only as a subject of political jokes, not as a felony (soldiers were singing of this in satirical rhymes during his triumph). I really allow for RCC to be still dragging this ancient tradition onwards!

Hmm very interesting Ant.

[Beckys_Mom]

. Some evil tongue may even say that Catholic Apostolic Church was initially a paedophilic conspiracy, which later lost some of its branches to more decent lifestyle.

Well I wouldnt go as far as to say - evil tongue... there could be a kennel of truth in that!!. ........Well I did say could be... I am not claiming it is so true lol

Besides we know how the 1st prods came around...

[MARAB0D]

You just amaze me sometimes, Mara! When you 'bring it' with Ancient Cultures, I am uber-impressed.

Have you read The Name of the Rose (Umberto Eco)? Or seen the film?

No, I never heard of this book or movie. Historical?

[MARAB0D]

Well I wouldnt go as far as to say - evil tongue... there could be a kennel of truth in that!!. ........Well I did say could be... I am not claiming it is so true lol

Besides we know how the 1st prods came around...

It exists, such historical coincidence. Tiberius was the first who introduced the fashion of paedophilia, probably it was already somehow existing in the family of Claudii, despite the earlier sources do not mention this. Nero went further, and introduced same-sex marriages of this kind - he married a 14yo boy nicknamed Spintrius, who was his lover for long time before and after. The nickname comes from a token "spintria" used for payments in the brothels. All Roman elite of Nero's time was engaged in homosexuality and paedophilia, of this casually writes Nero's close friend Petronius Arbitr (Satirae, Satiricon). The last 3 Caesars (Otto, Vitellius and Galba) were all Nero's friends and paedophiles. The tradition was stopped by Vespasian Flavius, who became Emperor of Rome in 68 AD, but few years after his death and death of his son Titus, his younger son Domicio (Domician) returned Rome to Nero's lifestyle.

First Christians were recorded in Rome during Nero's time, so the church was actually formed right at the moment when the popularity of paedophilia was at its top. Moreover, all Roman elite after Nero was engaged in paedophilia just because it was dangerous not to be, this could be interpreted as a disgust to the Caesar's lifestyle. This elite was the major owner of the household slaves, and these slaves were coming from the wars Rome was carrying. In 70 AD Titus Flavius, commander in Judaea, completely removed all Jewish population from it, and Vespasian approved granting its lands to the legionnaires as a part of retirement package. The Jews, including Christian Jews (former Essenes) were enslaved and shifted to Italy, where many Christians became the slaves of the wealthy Roman and provincial families. It was unavoidable for their children to be molested in these families, and these sexually molested children formed the parish of Roman Church - and a bit later they were joined there by their molesters, as Roman elite, feeling in isolation, started to accept Christianity too. This could well be the start of our story!

Edited April 21, 2010 by MARAB0D

[mklsgl]

Pope promises action against clerical sex abuse

By NICOLE WINFIELD, AP

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100421/EU.Vatican.Church.Abuse/

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI promised Wednesday that the Catholic Church would take action to confront the clerical sex abuse scandal, making his first public comments on the crisis days after meeting with victims.

During his weekly public audience in St. Peter's Square, Benedict recounted his tearful weekend encounter in Malta with eight men who say they were abused as children by priests in a church-run orphanage.

"I shared with them their suffering, and emotionally prayed with them, assuring them of church action," Benedict said.

At the time of the private meeting Sunday, the Vatican issued a statement saying Benedict had told the men that the church would do everything in its power to bring justice to abusive priests and would implement "effective measures" to protect children.

Wednesday, the public heard the words from the pope himself.

Neither Benedict nor the Vatican has elaborated on what action or measures are being considered. Various national bishops conferences have over the years implemented norms for handling cases of priests who sexually abuse children, none more stringent than the zero-tolerance policy adopted by the United States.

The U.S. norms, which are being held up as a model for others, bar credibly accused priests from any public church work while claims against them are under investigation. Diocesan review boards, comprised mostly of lay people, help bishops oversee cases. Clergy found guilty are permanently barred from public ministry and, in some cases, ousted from the priesthood.

Victims advocates have demanded the Vatican take stronger action and remove the bishops who shielded known abusers, shuffling them around from diocese to diocese rather than reporting them to police.

On Wednesday, two church officials in Dublin told The Associated Press that the pope had accepted the resignation of Bishop James Moriarty, who admitted in December that he hadn't challenged the Dublin archdioceses' past practice of concealing child abuse complaints from police.

A formal announcement is expected from the Vatican on Thursday, the church officials told the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Vatican also is expected to accept the December resignation offers of two auxiliary Dublin bishops, Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field, in coming weeks.

All three bishops were identified in an Irish government-ordered investigation published last year into decades of cover-ups of child-abusing clergy in the Dublin Archdiocese. The report found that all bishops until 1996 colluded to protect scores of pedophile priests from criminal prosecution.

Last week, the Vatican for the first time issued guidelines telling bishops they should report cases of abusive priests to police where civil laws require it. While the Vatican has insisted that was long its policy, it was never written explicitly and victims, lawyers, government-backed inquiries and grand juries have all accused the church of mounting a cover-up to keep clerical abuse secret and away from civil jurisdiction.

Benedict said in a homily last week that Christians must repent for sins and recognize their mistakes — comments widely interpreted as concerning the scandal. But his comments Wednesday marked his first public and direct remarks on the crisis since March 20, when he wrote a letter to the Irish faithful concerning the abuse crisis in that country.

In that letter, Benedict chastised Irish bishops for leadership failures and "gross errors of judgment" in handling abuse cases. But he laid no blame on the church hierarchy, whom critics blame for mandating a culture of secrecy that encouraged bishops to keep abuse quiet.

Three Irish government-ordered investigations published from 2005 to 2009 have documented how thousands of Irish children suffered rape, molestation and other abuse by priests in their parishes and by nuns and brothers in boarding schools and orphanages. Irish bishops did not report a single case to police until 1996 after victims began to sue the church.

The reports have faulted Rome for sending confusing messages to the Irish church about norms to be followed and, in general, for what it called the absence of a coherent set of canon laws and rules to apply in cases of abuse.

___

Associated Press writer Shawn Pogatchnik contributed to this report from Dublin.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Beckys_Mom]

It exists, such historical coincidence. Tiberius was the first who introduced the fashion of paedophilia, probably it was already somehow existing in the family of Claudii, despite the earlier sources do not mention this. Nero went further, and introduced same-sex marriages of this kind - he married a 14yo boy nicknamed Spintrius, who was his lover for long time before and after. The nickname comes from a token "spintria" used for payments in the brothels. All Roman elite of Nero's time was engaged in homosexuality and paedophilia, of this casually writes Nero's close friend Petronius Arbitr (Satirae, Satiricon). The last 3 Caesars (Otto, Vitellius and Galba) were all Nero's friends and paedophiles. The tradition was stopped by Vespasian Flavius, who became Emperor of Rome in 68 AD, but few years after his death and death of his son Titus, his younger son Domicio (Domician) returned Rome to Nero's lifestyle.

Ineresting bit of info you got there MARA... but to add ...or point out....when it comes to the christian bible.. it is said that Moses himself introduced it

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

And if the age of consent in those days for sex was 12-13... then he was talking about the younger girls...keep for themselves!

[Beckys_Mom]

It exists, such historical coincidence. Tiberius was the first who introduced the fashion of paedophilia, probably it was already somehow existing in the family of Claudii, despite the earlier sources do not mention this. Nero went further, and introduced same-sex marriages of this kind - he married a 14yo boy nicknamed Spintrius, who was his lover for long time before and after. The nickname comes from a token "spintria" used for payments in the brothels. All Roman elite of Nero's time was engaged in homosexuality and paedophilia, of this casually writes Nero's close friend Petronius Arbitr (Satirae, Satiricon). The last 3 Caesars (Otto, Vitellius and Galba) were all Nero's friends and paedophiles. The tradition was stopped by Vespasian Flavius, who became Emperor of Rome in 68 AD, but few years after his death and death of his son Titus, his younger son Domicio (Domician) returned Rome to Nero's lifestyle.

First Christians were recorded in Rome during Nero's time, so the church was actually formed right at the moment when the popularity of paedophilia was at its top. Moreover, all Roman elite after Nero was engaged in paedophilia just because it was dangerous not to be, this could be interpreted as a disgust to the Caesar's lifestyle. This elite was the major owner of the household slaves, and these slaves were coming from the wars Rome was carrying. In 70 AD Titus Flavius, commander in Judaea, completely removed all Jewish population from it, and Vespasian approved granting its lands to the legionnaires as a part of retirement package. The Jews, including Christian Jews (former Essenes) were enslaved and shifted to Italy, where many Christians became the slaves of the wealthy Roman and provincial families. It was unavoidable for their children to be molested in these families, and these sexually molested children formed the parish of Roman Church - and a bit later they were joined there by their molesters, as Roman elite, feeling in isolation, started to accept Christianity too. This could well be the start of our story!

I read this earlier today... before I had constant interuptions from Becky to make me loose my place lol..........I found it rather interesting...I tried looking some of it up MARA...I type in IE - History of Pedaedophilia <-- and get a lot on the Greeks..........

Just as a favour...I normally neve ask...but can you give me more info on this? I think you are on to something here MARA....and I think it could have set the ball rolling....so anything on what you have just spoken about would be nice

Tell me something......... do you think that is why they kept it out of the bible? what I mean is... they are fond of placing - Homosexuality as sinful....I get homosexuals...but for the love of green peace, I do NOT get Peado's???? So I wondered why did the church not place this as sinful?

Sorry ...I am trying to wrap my Irish noggin around this and don't get it!!..............They direct their bible at dopey lil sins that the rest of us wouldnt bat an eye at....yet leave out child sex abuse??? Twisted!!

Edited April 21, 2010 by Beckys_Mom

[MARAB0D]

I read this earlier today... before I had constant interuptions from Becky to make me loose my place lol..........I found it rather interesting...I tried looking some of it up MARA...I type in IE - History of Pedaedophilia <-- and get a lot on the Greeks..........

Just as a favour...I normally neve ask...but can you give me more info on this? I think you are on to something here MARA....and I think it could have set the ball rolling....so anything on what you have just spoken about would be nice

Tell me something......... do you think that is why they kept it out of the bible? what I mean is... they are fond of placing - Homosexuality as sinful....I get homosexuals...but for the love of green peace, I do NOT get Peado's???? So I wondered why did the church not place this as sinful?

Sorry ...I am trying to wrap my Irish noggin around this and don't get it!!..............They direct their bible at dopey lil sins that the rest of us wouldnt bat an eye at....yet leave out child sex abuse??? Twisted!!

What as I think was happening in the very primitive ancient society was the perception of malehood as a form of dominance. The male, considering himself "strong" was feeling in position to sexually subdue not only females, but all other weaker than him, including weaker males and children. It is very possible that this was seen as a sort of a sacred action. The reminiscence of this was affecting the societies of Antiquity, the details we know about Nero's sexual practices demonstrate that he was bisexual and was drawing pleasure from all forms of sexual misbehaviour including bestiality - sometimes he was ordering to dress men and women into lions and leopards skins and tie them to the poles, then he was raping them all indiscriminately, and when tired was giving his own body to his friends or loyal slaves.

In parts this may come from the absence of normal entertainment in Antiquity. Occasional circus and theatre performances were too expensive to be staged too often, absolute majority was not literate enough to read books, so sex was the only accessible form of entertainment, but it becomes insipid without new varieties of it, hence they were inventing or borrowing from other nations various forms of perversity. In Rome already Tiberius was feeling dissatisfaction with the normal sex, so he introduced group sex and oral sex, which Romans did not practice before. One must keep in mind that in a standard, poor ancient society people were working day and night to generate food for themselves, so their leisure time was very limited - but in those ancient societies which managed to achieve some level of wealth, for the elite leisure was the main time. Such societies were in different periods Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Persians, Parthians, Romans.

Edited April 21, 2010 by MARAB0D

[mklsgl]

No, I never heard of this book or movie. Historical?

It's fiction but quite accurate in its depiction of 12th/13th century Monk-hood.

[Beckys_Mom]

What as I think was happening in the very primitive ancient society was the perception of malehood as a form of dominance. The male, considering himself "strong" was feeling in position to sexually subdue not only females, but all other weaker than him, including weaker males and children. It is very possible that this was seen as a sort of a sacred action. The reminiscence of this was affecting the societies of Antiquity, the details we know about Nero's sexual practices demonstrate that he was bisexual and was drawing pleasure from all forms of sexual misbehaviour including bestiality - sometimes he was ordering to dress men and women into lions and leopards skins and tie them to the poles, then he was raping them all indiscriminately, and when tired was giving his own body to his friends or loyal slaves.

In parts this may come from the absence of normal entertainment in Antiquity. Occasional circus and theatre performances were too expensive to be staged too often, absolute majority was not literate enough to read books, so sex was the only accessible form of entertainment, but it becomes insipid without new varieties of it, hence they were inventing or borrowing from other nations various forms of perversity. In Rome already Tiberius was feeling dissatisfaction with the normal sex, so he introduced group sex and oral sex, which Romans did not practice before. One must keep in mind that in a standard, poor ancient society people were working day and night to generate food for themselves, so their leisure time was very limited - but in those ancient societies which managed to achieve some level of wealth, for the elite leisure was the main time. Such societies were in different periods Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Persians, Parthians, Romans.

Ok now I have a mental pic of an ancient roman tying up women to rape them......UHHHH and man still does things like that in this day and age.. it never ended...

Tiberius was over run with hormones!!!

Not to sound sexist.. but thats whats wrong with males in general (not meaning all males) they seem to allow their hormones control them

Say about my otherquestion....the church keeping the pedo criomes out of the bible and not making it out as sinful? what are your thoughts on that?

[mklsgl]

It exists, such historical coincidence. Tiberius was the first who introduced the fashion of paedophilia, probably it was already somehow existing in the family of Claudii, despite the earlier sources do not mention this. Nero went further, and introduced same-sex marriages of this kind - he married a 14yo boy nicknamed Spintrius, who was his lover for long time before and after. The nickname comes from a token "spintria" used for payments in the brothels. All Roman elite of Nero's time was engaged in homosexuality and paedophilia, of this casually writes Nero's close friend Petronius Arbitr (Satirae, Satiricon). The last 3 Caesars (Otto, Vitellius and Galba) were all Nero's friends and paedophiles. The tradition was stopped by Vespasian Flavius, who became Emperor of Rome in 68 AD, but few years after his death and death of his son Titus, his younger son Domicio (Domician) returned Rome to Nero's lifestyle.

First Christians were recorded in Rome during Nero's time, so the church was actually formed right at the moment when the popularity of paedophilia was at its top. Moreover, all Roman elite after Nero was engaged in paedophilia just because it was dangerous not to be, this could be interpreted as a disgust to the Caesar's lifestyle. This elite was the major owner of the household slaves, and these slaves were coming from the wars Rome was carrying. In 70 AD Titus Flavius, commander in Judaea, completely removed all Jewish population from it, and Vespasian approved granting its lands to the legionnaires as a part of retirement package. The Jews, including Christian Jews (former Essenes) were enslaved and shifted to Italy, where many Christians became the slaves of the wealthy Roman and provincial families. It was unavoidable for their children to be molested in these families, and these sexually molested children formed the parish of Roman Church - and a bit later they were joined there by their molesters, as Roman elite, feeling in isolation, started to accept Christianity too. This could well be the start of our story!

If so, Mara, then is it possible that the "story" was made concrete with the Nicene Creed?

[mklsgl]

Ok now I have a mental pic of an ancient roman tying up women to rape them......UHHHH and man still does things like that in this day and age.. it never ended...

Tiberius was over run with hormones!!!

Not to sound sexist.. but thats whats wrong with males in general (not meaning all males) they seem to allow their hormones control them

Say about my otherquestion....the church keeping the pedo criomes out of the bible and not making it out as sinful? what are your thoughts on that?

Out of control hormones... See Caligula (the movie).

[Beckys_Mom]

Out of control hormones... See Caligula (the movie).

Interesting... Malcome Mc Dowell was over run with hormones in the cult classic - Clockwork Orange....and he is in Caligua also....

In saying that I find his acting good... loved him in Hereos-.. EDIT and the Time Machine from HG Wells... its good

Edited April 21, 2010 by Beckys_Mom

[MARAB0D]

Interesting... Malcome Mc Dowell was over run with hormones in the cult classic - Clockwork Orange....and he is in Caligua also....

In saying that I find his acting good... loved him in Hereos-.. EDIT and the Time Machine from HG Wells... its good

I love him in The Lucky Man, saw ages ago and cannot buy a dvd of it. Caligula sure was extremely psychotic and asocial, he even had his own mother Agrippina killed, and was planning this killing for almost 2 years. She liked to travel by water, so he hired engineers to develop a self-decaying ship, build it and presented to her. When the ship fell apart amid the night, the crew sank, but Agrippina occurred to be a good swimmer and would've sure managed to reach the shore (it was about a mile away) if Caligula in panic did not order to kill her with the paddles. Ewww... He also killed almost all Roman patricians, viewing them as potential rivals. At home he was wearing the armour from the grave of Alexander the Great - but when the lightning was striking in the sky, was hiding deep in the cellars and covering himself with a sheep skin. He lacked the glory and arranged a fake intrusion into Germany with a full-scale battle imitation, then he made a triumph for himself and the Gauls with hairs dyed red were following him pretending to be captured Germans... In short, he was a bit of a loony.

This lunacy can be traced almost in every Caesar of 1st century. One hypothesis says that the most wealthy Roman families could afford the water-supply pipes lined with lead (as the laymen were using the oak ones). This caused chronicle lead poisoning, existing in all their generations, and made them inadequate and aggressive. The last patricians were killed shortly after Nero's reign, the last three Caesars and their supporters (Otto, Vitellius, Galba) - and Vespasian was the first ruler from a Plebeyan family (his father was a fish trader).

[Doc Socks Junior]

I love him in The Lucky Man, saw ages ago and cannot buy a dvd of it. Caligula sure was extremely psychotic and asocial, he even had his own mother Agrippina killed, and was planning this killing for almost 2 years. She liked to travel by water, so he hired engineers to develop a self-decaying ship, build it and presented to her. When the ship fell apart amid the night, the crew sank, but Agrippina occurred to be a good swimmer and would've sure managed to reach the shore (it was about a mile away) if Caligula in panic did not order to kill her with the paddles. Ewww... He also killed almost all Roman patricians, viewing them as potential rivals. At home he was wearing the armour from the grave of Alexander the Great - but when the lightning was striking in the sky, was hiding deep in the cellars and covering himself with a sheep skin. He lacked the glory and arranged a fake intrusion into Germany with a full-scale battle imitation, then he made a triumph for himself and the Gauls with hairs dyed red were following him pretending to be captured Germans... In short, he was a bit of a loony.

This lunacy can be traced almost in every Caesar of 1st century. One hypothesis says that the most wealthy Roman families could afford the water-supply pipes lined with lead (as the laymen were using the oak ones). This caused chronicle lead poisoning, existing in all their generations, and made them inadequate and aggressive. The last patricians were killed shortly after Nero's reign, the last three Caesars and their supporters (Otto, Vitellius, Galba) - and Vespasian was the first ruler from a Plebeyan family (his father was a fish trader).

Look, I'm sure this history is fun to read about, and disgorge upon the forums. However, it really doesn't add much to the thread.

In addition, a lot of it is just plain wrong. First of all, Caligula's mother was killed by Tiberius. Not by Caligula. YOu're apparently confusing her with Nero's mother. In addition to that, most of the information you're giving is "eyewitness accounts" which usually don't prove to be accurate. Look at Herodotus if you want an example of that.

And, IMO, worse, you decided to give a somewhat confusingly random account of early Christianity. I'm somewhat interested in where the information came from. All in the interest of accuracry.

Edited April 21, 2010 by socrates.junior