Sexual freaks hiding under the cloak of religion , page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 01:39 PM by kinda kurious
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to
post by kinda kurious



Keep in mind however, there is no scientific proof that these people were actually molested, raped by a priest. I am not saying it didn't happen.... just that there is hardly any proof. What's to stop me from saying the priest back in 4th grade touched me during confession? Nothing. And I could join in on one of these class action lawsuits and make a few hundred grand doing it..


Oh great........a stalker. "I'm not saying it didn't happen" well I'm saying it did. But I'll gladly just refute your nonsense with data.

Money can be a little better than nothing and is what the Church too often historically offered victims. Many survivors, in fact, resorted to lawsuits only after being stonewalled in their quest for more personal reparative gestures. Legal action, in this situation, represents a last ditch effort by the survivor to become an agent in his own life. Further, a lawsuit, when all else has failed, puts into action an understandable demand that the truth be told one way or another.


www.bishop-accountability.org...

Altough someone like yourself might resort to false accusations it wouldn't surprise me. BTW, as far as what's stopping you, you'd need to file a Sworn Affidavit whereby if you were caught providing false testimony, you'd face perjury charges.

Plus I doubt the church would just shell out upwards of $600 Million bucks
if there was nothing to hide.

Some "Survivor" Accounts as if you are actually interested:

www.bishop-accountability.org...

Check out those nifty sources.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by kinda kurious]


reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 02:01 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by kinda kurious



Hate the Church much?



reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 02:09 PM by kinda kurious
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to
post by kinda kurious



Hate the Church much?


Mostly it is the sexual abuse of children I detest.

Which I hardly think is a laughing matter.

Granted some groups who wear long robes and pointy hats are bigots nonetheless.

It matters little if their cross is aflame.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by kinda kurious]


reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 02:37 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by kinda kurious



....I suppose you mean Vestments and a Miter ... which.. priest don't wear Miters.

Does your ignorance know no bounds?

The Church sex abuse scandal is a disgusting shame. Do I believe it's exclusively Catholic? Hardly.


reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 03:12 PM by kinda kurious
reply to post by Rockpuck



Wow your knowledge of bigot oriented groups is astounding.

I'll bet you also are also quite familiar with the sheet wearing crowd.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by kinda kurious]


reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 09:36 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by kinda kurious




Wow your knowledge of bigot oriented groups is astounding.


Care to clarify how the Church is "Bigoted" ....



reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 10:38 AM by FlyersFan
Originally posted by Selahobed
God NEVER commanded us to be celibate lol, He said "Go forth and multiply" He commanded us to be "fruitfull". Only the pagan priests in the past were to be abstainate.

Wrong.
You didn't read the thread, did ya'?

Celibacy and the priesthood

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).




reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 12:44 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by FlyersFan




those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that


Paul knew the truth! .. I always wondered specifically why people always say Paul was a sexist who didn't like women.

Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why are these 10 figures just like Jesus Christ??
  Posted 7 days ago with 14 member flags
I am an imposter in Church
  Posted 6 days ago with 11 member flags
What Kind of Christianity Is This?
  Posted 18 days ago with 7 member flags
The Great Flood Was Caused By A Comet?
  Posted 13 days ago with 7 member flags
Advert claiming cure through prayer is banned
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
The real Jewish people. Torah Jews Against ZIONISM
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
The World Is in Desperate Need of Heretics!
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags