(May 31, 2013 at 3:46 am)Godschild Wrote: Would you like me to look up the number of sexual predators that do not belong to any church and in fact claim there's no god.

Actually, yes please.

I second that CoH!

IF you would be so kind G-C

(May 31, 2013 at 3:37 am)cato123 Wrote:

(May 31, 2013 at 3:10 am)Godschild Wrote: The reason I have you on ignore and seldom read your post is because you are an irresponsible person and, in this instant one who cares nothing for these children, all you care about is running down Christians.

Preposterous! I stated plainly that this was not a religious issue, yet I am accused of running down Christians.

You then have the audacity to suggest that I care nothing about these children, when my contribution to this thread has been to dispel myths that obfuscate the real issue. One myth is the idea that married people, priests or not, don't sexually abuse children. If anything, I can make the argument that those that so trivially offer a solution consisting of nothing more than Catholic priests being allowed to marry are ones that don't care about sexually abused children.

Personally I do not care what you think or think you can prove, I've given evidence from more than one source, reliable sources, yet you ignore them. I know why because your main concern is running down Christians, my info covered all children, you singled out the church, that makes you bigoted against anything a Christian has to say or suggest. Married couples are known to be more responsible people, there is a great deal to say for stable marriages whether there in the church or not. If you can not accept the truth about married couples and the info from the sources I used then we're done here. Children are more important than some petty argument.

---

(May 31, 2013 at 3:53 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(May 31, 2013 at 3:46 am)Godschild Wrote: Would you like me to look up the number of sexual predators that do not belong to any church and in fact claim there's no god.

Actually, yes please.

Is your title Min. You know what the result would be and you are more interested in running down Christians or just wanting to cause trouble than you are with the evil abuse these children go through, that goes for you to Kich.

(May 29, 2013 at 3:20 pm)wwjs Wrote:

(May 29, 2013 at 11:09 am)Drich Wrote: There not.

They are men in the end. Men do good things and men do bad things in the sight of God and other men. Being Christian does not mean we are free from sin. Paul talks about this in Romans, that we are not free from sin, that He himself was still a slave to sin even though He knows what he should do, he does not do it. It is the things he does not want to do (sin) those are the things he does repeatly. He goes on to say so long as we are bound to these bodies we are bound to sin. Christian Men are like any other in that we will be judged by the same God all must give an account to. Our self appointed titles Christian, pastor, priest, bishop, pope mean nothing before God, and do not save us because this is what we call ourselves. Christ will judge us based on what we have or do not have in our hearts.

Let's say that they'll pray to God and ask him for forgiveness. Since I'm an atheist I couldn't have been a true Christian so I ask you for answer. Will they go
A To hell
B To heaven

The answer is C…PURGATORY!
This is where people who die with sins on their heads go. People who go there are repentant for what they have done and want to be with God, but their sins won't let them because "nothing defiled shall enter heaven". It is a period of temporary suffering, in which people are 'purged' of their sins and eventually get into heaven.
Purgatory is a balance of God's mercy and God's justice.

(May 31, 2013 at 3:56 am)Godschild Wrote: Personally I do not care what you think or think you can prove, I've given evidence from more than one source, reliable sources, yet you ignore them. I know why because your main concern is running down Christians, my info covered all children, you singled out the church, that makes you bigoted against anything a Christian has to say or suggest.

Speaking of ignoring things, I pointed out something rather important you're missing a few pages back: Even the priests who weren't pedophiles were involved in an organized cover up to keep the offenders from ever facing justice. You're playing this off like christianity had no part in this, when it's a documented fact that in these cases the good name of the church was placed above the welfare of the children. Singling out the church is necessary when the church consistently singles itself out as above the law.

Also, I love that since someone disagrees with you, they must be bigoted against your religion. That's hilarious.

Quote:Married couples are known to be more responsible people, there is a great deal to say for stable marriages whether there in the church or not.

Is that true, though? I mean, anecdotal evidence aside (and I could give you a doozy of a counter example, if I had to) is there really a rational basis for saying this? Especially in response to the conversation you're actually having? Like it or not, religion does tend to convince people of a lot of wrong things under the guise of them being morally good; once again, even the priests not directly involved in the acts tended to cover it up, or at least remain silent on it.

The church is a house of god, GC: what's more "responsible" than defending that?

(For the record, I know that argument is a shitty one: that's not the point, if you feel like attacking me for it rather than the content of my actual argument.)

Quote:If you can not accept the truth about married couples and the info from the sources I used then we're done here. Children are more important than some petty argument.

Tell that to the church.

G-C

YOU were ASKED nicely to provide the information. STOP trying to wangle out of it and...

PROVIDE THE FUCKING INFORMATION YOU SEEM TO THINK WILL MAKE ATHEISTS LOOK BAD!

(May 29, 2013 at 3:24 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yet another Catholic abuse scandal

Hi Esquilax,

While I share your horror at any cases of abuse (in any environment) its important to note that this is NOT "yet another" scandal, rather the article is about a discussion investigating the problems which caused prior scandal.

The media are somewhat hypocritical, in that they only want to criticise the institution of the Church for its own failures, they are no interested in criticising homosexuality - the disordered attraction which caused the bulk of the cases.

The media like to talk about "child rape" etc, but - as I have demonstrated on this forum before - the greater majority of victims in Catholic cases were in fact sexually mature males, as old as 17.

This is largely hidden from an unquestioning public, because it flies in the face of the current social moves to portray homosexuality as normal / harmless.

(May 31, 2013 at 9:39 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: Hi Esquilax,

While I share your horror at any cases of abuse (in any environment) its important to note that this is NOT "yet another" scandal, rather the article is about a discussion investigating the problems which caused prior scandal.

Mere quibbling: the fact is, it happened at all.

Quote:The media are somewhat hypocritical, in that they only want to criticise the institution of the Church for its own failures, they are no interested in criticising homosexuality - the disordered attraction which caused the bulk of the cases.

That's probably because connecting the two things is factually incorrect.

Quote:The media like to talk about "child rape" etc, but - as I have demonstrated on this forum before - the greater majority of victims in Catholic cases were in fact sexually mature males, as old as 17.

Oh, well that's perfectly fine, then.

Quote:This is largely hidden from an unquestioning public, because it flies in the face of the current social moves to portray homosexuality as normal / harmless.

Or, because homosexuality isn't connected to pedophilia at all; something the scientific consensus and research bears out. Merely asserting that it does doesn't constitute evidence and you should ask yourself: why doesn't the scientific and psychological community agree with you?

(May 31, 2013 at 10:03 am)Esquilax Wrote: Mere quibbling: the fact is, it happened at all.

Sorry, pointing out that you lied about the existence of a new case of abuse isnt "quibbling".

(May 31, 2013 at 10:03 am)Esquilax Wrote: That's probably because connecting the two things is factually incorrect.

I didnt say "gays are paedophiles".

I said homosexual men committed the vast majority of the Catholic absue cases, which is the truth.

Arte you able to distinguish the obvious difference between those two statements?

(May 31, 2013 at 10:03 am)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, well that's perfectly fine, then.

I didnt suggest it was "perfectly fine", I was questioning why the media and others are concealing facts and attempting to give a false impression.

(May 31, 2013 at 10:03 am)Esquilax Wrote: Or, because homosexuality isn't connected to pedophilia at all; something the scientific consensus and research bears out. Merely asserting that it does doesn't constitute evidence and you should ask yourself: why doesn't the scientific and psychological community agree with you?

I made no comment on any possible connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.

I made a truthful statement regarding the fact that homosexual men were responsible for the majority of the abuse cases.

These men were ephebophiles - ie attracted to teenage boys - not paedophiles (attracted to children).

Older homosexual men who are attracted to young, but still sexually mature, males have long been recognised and celebrated in the gay community. "Chicken hawks".

Chicken Hawk (slang): a man who pursues boys or young men for sexual purposes.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chicken+hawk

No-one is suggesting all gay men are predators - they are not - you need not be so defensive. But we must be able to openly discuss the reality behind the abuse cases, if we are to learn from / understand them.

Quite ironic some are happy to tar all priests as abusers, but go mental at the thought of gay men being abusers

(May 31, 2013 at 10:20 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: Sorry, pointing out that you lied about the existence of a new case of abuse isnt "quibbling".

Lied? No, the most you can do is say I misread the text, or perhaps used words you wouldn't have. I was under the impression that one of Australia's top ranking Catholic priests finally admitting that this is a thing, and that it was furthermore a thing that was covered up, counts as a scandal. If you want to label it as merely a continuation of a larger scandal, then yes, that is quibbling, and remarkably callous quibbling at that, considering that it still happened.

Quote:I didnt say "gays are paedophiles".

Good. If you did, you'd be wrong.

Quote:I said homosexual men committed the vast majority of the Catholic absue cases, which is the truth.

Proof, please. I mean, I gave you proof that, if anything, pedophilia is a distinct sexual attraction, independent of homo or heterosexuality, but if you're trying to ascribe something else then you'll need evidence before you can honestly call it truth.

Quote:Arte you able to distinguish the obvious difference between those two statements?

Just so long as you're able to distinguish the difference between an assertion and truth, in turn.

Quote:I didnt suggest it was "perfectly fine", I was questioning why the media and others are concealing facts and attempting to give a false impression.

Sorry, no: I don't know how it is where you are, but I've seen multiple news sources and documentaries over the years that have represented the full age range of the victims here; the scale of it is better for drama than covering it up, after all. As to your assertion on homosexuality, I'd suggest the media is rightfully leery about representing inflammatory topics that aren't even backed by data. At the very least, you'd only be able to prove parallel orientations, not that they're in any way connected.

Quote:I made no comment on any possible connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Given how common that canard is, you might understand why I went there.

Quote:I made a truthful statement regarding the fact that homosexual men were responsible for the majority of the abuse cases.

Maybe.

Quote:These men were ephebophiles - ie attracted to teenage boys - not paedophiles (attracted to children).

Or more accurately, there was a mix of the two. Though of course, still quibbling; age isn't the issue in contention here. Nonconsensuality is the part that should get the contention here; whether these victims were five or fifteen doesn't change that it's bad.

Quote:Older homosexual men who are attracted to young, but still sexually mature, males have long been recognised and celebrated in the gay community. "Chicken hawks".

In the same way that heterosexuals have "cradle-robber," I bet.

Quote:No-one is suggesting all gay men are predators - they are not - you need not be so defensive. But we must be able to openly discuss the reality behind the abuse cases, if we are to learn from / understand them.

Now that is a truth statement.

Quote:Quite ironic some are happy to tar all priests as abusers, but go mental at the thought of gay men being abusers

I think abusers is abusers, no matter what else they are. I do, however, get wound up about church coverups, which is a specifically religious thing in this case.