May they rot in hell for eternity
-
IMO they have to ditch the celibacy if they want a healthy Church. Remember “The thorn Birds”?
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
IMO they have to ditch the celibacy if they want a healthy Church. Remember “The thorn Birds”?
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
IMO they have to ditch the celibacy
I've never tried celibacy - what's it like? ;)
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
I've never tried celibacy
I don’t believe you; I know you have been married.
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Pedophilia is, I am afraid, quite common. According to a number of studies somewhere around one in five women and one in six men have been abused. The vast majority of them are abused not by clergy or boy scout leaders or any of the other popular stereotypes, but by family members or close family friends. This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported - but focusing too much on the Catholic Church as a source of pedophilia is, to my mind, looking away from the real problem. Whatever hypocrisy is shown by the priesthood as they protect their own - how much greater is the hypocrisy of families - mothers hiding abuse by fathers, older brothers, grandfathers, and uncles, and forcing their sons and daughter to keep quiet - even blame themselves?
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported - but focusing too much on the Catholic Church as a source of pedophilia is, to my mind, looking away from the real problem. Whatever hypocrisy is shown by the priesthood as they protect their own -
Some things do however spring to mind. For example those families are not tax exempt institutions. There is also no wide ranging conspiracy with hundreds if not thousands of individuals complicit in it.
Oakman wrote:
how much greater is the hypocrisy of families - mothers hiding abuse by fathers, older brothers, grandfathers, and uncles, and forcing their sons and daughter to keep quiet - even blame themselves?
Which is nothing but a very, very poor attempt to deflect blame. First every sexual crime is very likely to cause the victim to blame themselves. Actually most serious crime of any sort does that. Second is is common sense to see that the church is vastly more hypocritical. The Catholic church has for centuries has made a significant point of condemning sex of any sort excluding that between a married man and women (and still limits that with a ban on any sort of birth control.) And they have done so via a vast number of public forums. Additionally the priesthood is specifically prohibited from any sex as well. A substantial point of their entire life is specifically dedicated to actively condemning this. Yet there has been a substantial organized long time effort to cover up every single instance.
-
Oakman wrote:
I've never tried celibacy
I don’t believe you; I know you have been married.
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I know you have been married.
Was that supposed to stop me from screwing around? Being someone who came of age in the 60's, I didn't get the memo! ;)
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
I'm going to use that. :-D
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Oakman wrote:
This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported - but focusing too much on the Catholic Church as a source of pedophilia is, to my mind, looking away from the real problem. Whatever hypocrisy is shown by the priesthood as they protect their own -
Some things do however spring to mind. For example those families are not tax exempt institutions. There is also no wide ranging conspiracy with hundreds if not thousands of individuals complicit in it.
Oakman wrote:
how much greater is the hypocrisy of families - mothers hiding abuse by fathers, older brothers, grandfathers, and uncles, and forcing their sons and daughter to keep quiet - even blame themselves?
Which is nothing but a very, very poor attempt to deflect blame. First every sexual crime is very likely to cause the victim to blame themselves. Actually most serious crime of any sort does that. Second is is common sense to see that the church is vastly more hypocritical. The Catholic church has for centuries has made a significant point of condemning sex of any sort excluding that between a married man and women (and still limits that with a ban on any sort of birth control.) And they have done so via a vast number of public forums. Additionally the priesthood is specifically prohibited from any sex as well. A substantial point of their entire life is specifically dedicated to actively condemning this. Yet there has been a substantial organized long time effort to cover up every single instance.
jschell wrote:
For example those families are not tax exempt institutions.
I'm really not sure how that has anything to do with it, but for what it's worth, I don't think there should be tax-exempt organization - not the Catholic Church, not the Boy Scouts of America, not the Democratic party, not General Electric - and not all those families that use their mortgage interest as a tax-deduction.
jschell wrote:
Which is nothing but a very, very poor attempt to deflect blame.
It appears you have some trouble comprehending the words "This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported." Tell me which ones you have having trouble with and I'll attempt to rephrase.
jschell wrote:
Second is is common sense to see that the church is vastly more hypocritical.
Really? That's "common sense?" An institution not living up to its pronouncements is "vastly" more hypocritical than a mother pretending that there's nothing wrong with a father, her husband, raping a son or daughter? Really??? Wow :rolleyes:
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
I'm going to use that. :-D
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
250?? And how many lives did they FU forever?? Rotting in hell would be to good for them. I'd say prison in a cell with a horny queen for 20 life sentences.
Now that food has replaced sex in my life, I can't even get into my own pants.
-
-
Shameel wrote:
I'm surprised the church did that.
Why? The Catholic Church is a man-made institution. And every institution, no matter how noble, holy, or altruistic its professed goals quickly determines that its most important function is to stay in existence and, as a concomitant, to increase its power. This is true for any religious group, political entity, charitable organization, or corporation. And the leaders will all, perhaps with great protestations of disliking what they do, lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to protect their organization - which, incidentally, maintains and increases their power, as well.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I'm going to use that
Be my guest. I must admit it didn't work very well with my third wife. She came of age in the 80's.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
And that's the last time she came. Boom tish.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Shameel wrote:
I'm surprised the church did that.
Why? The Catholic Church is a man-made institution. And every institution, no matter how noble, holy, or altruistic its professed goals quickly determines that its most important function is to stay in existence and, as a concomitant, to increase its power. This is true for any religious group, political entity, charitable organization, or corporation. And the leaders will all, perhaps with great protestations of disliking what they do, lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to protect their organization - which, incidentally, maintains and increases their power, as well.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
It seems you got me wrong. Let me amend my statement. "I'm surprised the Church posted names of Boston clergy accused of child sex abuse."
-
jschell wrote:
For example those families are not tax exempt institutions.
I'm really not sure how that has anything to do with it, but for what it's worth, I don't think there should be tax-exempt organization - not the Catholic Church, not the Boy Scouts of America, not the Democratic party, not General Electric - and not all those families that use their mortgage interest as a tax-deduction.
jschell wrote:
Which is nothing but a very, very poor attempt to deflect blame.
It appears you have some trouble comprehending the words "This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported." Tell me which ones you have having trouble with and I'll attempt to rephrase.
jschell wrote:
Second is is common sense to see that the church is vastly more hypocritical.
Really? That's "common sense?" An institution not living up to its pronouncements is "vastly" more hypocritical than a mother pretending that there's nothing wrong with a father, her husband, raping a son or daughter? Really??? Wow :rolleyes:
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
I'm really not sure how that has anything to do with it, but for what it's worth, I don't think there should be tax-exempt organization - not the Catholic Church, not the Boy Scouts of America, not the Democratic party, not General Electric - and not all those families that use their mortgage interest as a tax-deduction.
Which is hardly relevant since that is not the churches position.
Oakman wrote:
It appears you have some trouble comprehending the words "This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported." Tell me which ones you have having trouble with and I'll attempt to rephrase.
You posted the comparison. What exactly do you think your position is when you compare the two?
Oakman wrote:
Really? That's "common sense?" An institution not living up to its pronouncements is "vastly" more hypocritical than a mother pretending that there's nothing wrong with a father, her husband, raping a son or daughter? Really???
Obviously. Perhaps you need to look up the definition for hypocrisy.
-
Shameel wrote:
It seems you got me wrong.
Sorry.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
I'm really not sure how that has anything to do with it, but for what it's worth, I don't think there should be tax-exempt organization - not the Catholic Church, not the Boy Scouts of America, not the Democratic party, not General Electric - and not all those families that use their mortgage interest as a tax-deduction.
Which is hardly relevant since that is not the churches position.
Oakman wrote:
It appears you have some trouble comprehending the words "This does not in any way excuse those priests - or the ones who have not been reported." Tell me which ones you have having trouble with and I'll attempt to rephrase.
You posted the comparison. What exactly do you think your position is when you compare the two?
Oakman wrote:
Really? That's "common sense?" An institution not living up to its pronouncements is "vastly" more hypocritical than a mother pretending that there's nothing wrong with a father, her husband, raping a son or daughter? Really???
Obviously. Perhaps you need to look up the definition for hypocrisy.
Look, I have no need to defend the Catholic Church or any other organization that has harbored pedophiles. But at the same time I have no desire to talk to someone who would exculpate incestuous parents in order to pursue a verbal witch hunt against predatory priests. Frankly, the thought makes my skin crawl. Have a nice day, but find someone else to display your weirdness to.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
Why don't you tell us first?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
I think we all just learned something about fat_boy. Was anyone surprised?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Just out of curiosity when did you lose your virginity, and when did you want to lose it? --edit-- I see very few here understand the reason for this question. It is about trying to establish at what age we became sexually active and how that relates to current law. For example it is illegal for a 15 girl to send her 15 year old boyfriend a picture of her that is sexual in nature. (It is illegal for BOTH of them, since it concerns the production, distribution, and holding of what the law sees as 'child porn'). So, is paedophillia an age issue or a difference of age issue? --edit 2 -- Oh, by the way, 14 and 13 for me.
============================== Nothing to say.
modified on Monday, August 29, 2011 10:48 AM
Is there any legal basis to prohibit a minor to take pictures of himself? I don't think you can call it porn in that specific case, unless it becomes public. Then every adult who comes across it is responsible and the parents of the child who posted it on the internet are the ones at fault. But there are a lot of these gray zones. I'm pretty sure that some Swedish movies would be not okay in the US because there are naked children in them. Family pictures with nudity in them are no big deal for some people, while others go completely batshit. It's all very subjective to what can be considered as sexually explicit. Another strange thing. In Belgium the legal age is 16, but only for minors. This implies that a 16 year old girl can have a relation with a 17 year old boy... but if the boy turns 18, then technically it becomes rape. But a 18 year old girl with a 40 year old guy is never a problem. :rolleyes: FYI: while legally it's considered pedophilia between 0 and 18. In psychology there are various degrees: Pedophilia: -11 years for girls; -13 for boys. Before puberty. Hebephilia: 11 to 14; for girls; 13 to 16 for boys. Early stages of puberty Teleiphilia: 15 to early 20's. In my opinion, the first two should be crimes punishable by castration the latter shouldn't be a crime unless the adult is a douchebag. Yes, I think douchebag should be an official juridical legal term; it could contribute to make laws a lot more effective.
Giraffes are not real.
