Pope: Pedophilia Was "Fully In Conformity With Man And Even With Children"

page: 12
31
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Sure I do. They are simple evolutionary based views of the replication machine. It's objective because it is intrinsically true to the laws of the universe and how life goes. Morality, religion, and all things made by man to justify what is natural and what is right, always change and are in constant flux. But the idea of the gene machine, and with it the meme and the teme, are constants. They simple exist. The form of nature is not, but is.

You cannot apply subjective terms to something that simply is. It's like subjectivity to gravity or a black hole. These things are objective facts.


Now as to why it deserves rights, well that's very simple. If you stopped the gene machine, you no longer exist. If you stop the meme machine, you no longer exist. If you stop the teme machine, you no longer exist. Not just you, but the species in general. The application of memes that have tested through natural selection to prove themselves more fit to a condition and more fulfilling to the gene machine and the temes the two use, have every right to exist. And it has become readily identified that the meme machine has selected the right to life liberty and the purist of happiness. These trends are objective facts to the human condition. Memes are constructed to reach these goals. Genes are manipulated to reach these goals. Temes are produced to reach these goals. Since the first primate to visualize them. We even see such in primates around today.
edit on 17-11-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Now as to why it deserves rights, well that's very simple.


Its this step that has no objective basis for it, no matter how many times you try to repeat the opposite. Your second paragraph is just a subjective opinion.

Is-ought problem

edit on 17/11/11 by Maslo because: fixed link



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Pretty sure Pope Jean Paul 2 would not agree with the current pope

Current pope = Satan assistant



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Ever heard of free will and freedom in general? What gives you or the church the right to judge people? There's ZERO objective evidence backing up any of the Christian base beliefs for crying out loud. You being fine with people dieing because they don't fully share your belief is Hitler'esque and pretty much the same thing Muslim extremists think.

Really quite disgusting


All that matters is:

1) The church is actively covering up cases of child molestation (and it's not a fringe group, it's their very leadership).

2) They are actively causing people to die. The reasons don't matter, only the FACT that they are responsible for deaths.

Those are facts, and only a blind brainwashed sheep would ignore those facts
edit on 17-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


What is, is death. What ought to be is what benefits Man, and ideally world.

In order for your statement to be true, prove to me why what ought to be is not wrong, when based in what is.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Ever heard of free will and freedom in general? What gives you or the church the right to judge people?


These are not the same thing. I try not to judge people. I inevitably will. In the first 5 seconds I meet someone, my mind has already judges them based off all the little intricate movements of their body, emotion, figure of a smile, shape of a face, etc etc. I've been told I am very good at analytics of a person. I agree with their opinion. But what makes me more is the fact I let someone prove my assumptions of them wrong, and never ACT on my assumptions of a person. That, it's core, is Christian.

For free will, then why is the church responsible for their retardation?




There's ZERO objective evidence backing up any of the Christian base beliefs for crying out loud.


no, there is quite some proof. There is zero objective proof God exists though. I merely accept this.




You being fine with people dieing because they don't fully share your belief is Hitler'esque and pretty much the same thing Muslim extremists think.


I said I don't care, not that I'm fine with their deaths. Furthermore, I made it quite clear this is directed to people of my own faith, not those outside. Because those outside have no chance of salvation and death means damnation. Those of my own faith must face up to their self-induced lies, and will pay for lying to themselves. The hypocrite has the worse lie than the ignorant or unknown.

Furthermore, not caring about someone who is dead is sociopathic, and I admit to this fact. I do not feel anything for a dead person. I feel for when people die in front of me. I will do all I can to save them. But once they are dead, that's it. They're gone. There is no mourning, there is no care. The body is useless. The person is gone. This is inherently atheistic in thought, I admit, but I don't care. The body, once dead, deserves nothing more than a fire to get rid of disease. It has no importance.




Really quite disgusting


Don't see why. Call me a sociopath I guess.




1) The church is actively covering up cases of child molestation (and it's not a fringe group, it's their very leadership).


I've not yet seen proof this is to hide it versus just take care of it their own way. Granted this is no different than Sharia law in communities in England. The law of the land stands firm. You must deal with corporations on a very simple policy: audits and raids once suspicion provides evidence of guilt.




2) They are actively causing people to die. The reasons don't matter, only the FACT that they are responsible for deaths.


You have not yet proven to me why. You simply blame the church for the hypocritical tendencies of a community. It's scapegoating. Plenty of placed with strict moral codes like ancient China or the lot seem to have gotten by quite fine with waiting until they can support themselves to have sex. There are always exceptions of course, bu overwhelmingly this problem seems to be a primarily western one, and these problems seem to only exist where westerners have gone. The problem seems quite evidently to be cultural. Simply put, you are raised to do what you feel like, not what makes sense. This is illogical.




Those are facts, and only a blind brainwashed sheep would ignore those facts


Brainwashing doesn't exist and I've always doubted the "sheep" argument. Go to the real world. You will find that people are simply lazy and want to do what they want, not bound to any sense of responsibility or ethic. When you choose this life style, you get what you deserve. I live just an exciting life with happiness and joy not listining to my emotions and primitive desires, that is leading to social decay.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





But what makes me more is the fact I let someone prove my assumptions of them wrong, and never ACT on my assumptions of a person. That, it's core, is Christian.

For free will, then why is the church responsible for their retardation?


So not only do you believe they deserve to die, you are also calling them retarded? Great, you seem like a lovely chap





no, there is quite some proof. There is zero objective proof God exists though. I merely accept this.


Well, subjective evidence is worthless...if it weren't, we'd still believe in unicorns





I said I don't care, not that I'm fine with their deaths.


No, you said they deserve what's "coming to them". And given that death is coming to them because the church tells them not to use condoms, you are essentially fine with them dying because they don't follow YOUR moral code. Disgusting





I've not yet seen proof this is to hide it versus just take care of it their own way. Granted this is no different than Sharia law in communities in England. The law of the land stands firm. You must deal with corporations on a very simple policy: audits and raids once suspicion provides evidence of guilt.


For crying out loud, I posted links that show irrefutably that the current pope KNEW about the cases, and refused to fire those priests...essentially letting them do it over and over again. Which is exactly what happened as those links prove


You are closing your eyes to FACTS!




You have not yet proven to me why. You simply blame the church for the hypocritical tendencies of a community. It's scapegoating. Plenty of placed with strict moral codes like ancient China or the lot seem to have gotten by quite fine with waiting until they can support themselves to have sex. There are always exceptions of course, bu overwhelmingly this problem seems to be a primarily western one, and these problems seem to only exist where westerners have gone. The problem seems quite evidently to be cultural. Simply put, you are raised to do what you feel like, not what makes sense. This is illogical.


Look, it's really simple:

1) STDs exist, and they kill people.
2) Condoms protect against those STDs and prevent people from dying.
3) It's a FACT that the church tells people NOT to use condoms because of their twisted moral codes.
4) People die because of it.

If the church told people to use condoms like any sane person would, less people would die. So no matter how you try to justify this in your mind, the church is directly responsible for people's death!

That's why I believe the leadership of the Catholic church are a bunch of crooks, and I wouldn't share a tear if someone killed the whole lot.




Brainwashing doesn't exist and I've always doubted the "sheep" argument. Go to the real world. You will find that people are simply lazy and want to do what they want, not bound to any sense of responsibility or ethic. When you choose this life style, you get what you deserve. I live just an exciting life with happiness and joy not listining to my emotions and primitive desires, that is leading to social decay.


Well, there's about 4.9b (the majority) of people who consider your opinion complete and utter nonsense. And that's assuming all Christians agree with you, which I know isn't the case



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So not only do you believe they deserve to die, you are also calling them retarded? Great, you seem like a lovely chap


Yes. Congratulations. You look at how I think first rather than how I act after thinking some more, knowing I am assuming and therefore wrong. bending and choosing what you want to see for your designs. That's ignorant if I ever saw it.




Well, subjective evidence is worthless...if it weren't, we'd still believe in unicorns


And if a horse sperm accidentally reactivated a gene to grow a horn (after all, members of ungulate have them), then you'd have a unicorn.

Living in assumptions is pretty silly and ignorant to me. Just because I've never really been proven totally false in my assumptions in character based off a few seconds of knowing them doesn't mean the same is true for all people. I can be wrong. Under you're logic, the fact I have not been wrong means I ought to run with my first assumptions always.




No, you said they deserve what's "coming to them". And given that death is coming to them because the church tells them not to use condoms, you are essentially fine with them dying because they don't follow YOUR moral code. Disgusting


I call it civilized. If you ignore warnings of wiser and older people, and think the universe will bend to your confines of what you want to happen, you're being an immature and retarded adolescent, quite frankly.




For crying out loud, I posted links that show irrefutably that the current pope KNEW about the cases, and refused to fire those priests...essentially letting them do it over and over again. Which is exactly what happened as those links prove You are closing your eyes to FACTS!


You show me cases where the priest was pulled out and tried to be reeducated. No different than any other organization. Do I find this good? no. I am for the rule of law. But without proof of guilt, what can I say? I don't assume, unlike you.




Look, it's really simple:
1) STDs exist, and they kill people.
2) Condoms protect against those STDs and prevent people from dying.
3) It's a FACT that the church tells people NOT to use condoms because of their twisted moral codes.
4) People die because of it.

If the church told people to use condoms like any sane person would, less people would die. So no matter how you try to justify this in your mind, the church is directly responsible for people's death! That's why I believe the leadership of the Catholic church are a bunch of crooks, and I wouldn't share a tear if someone killed the whole lot.


And if you chose to not have sex until you knew the person and were well established in a relationship, you wouldn't have to worry about things like that. You claim I am forcing my moral codes on others, when you would demand all religions conform to your moral code. Hypocrisy and ignorance.

When did I say you have to stop what you're doing and go my way? You are the one doing that.




Well, there's about 4.9b (the majority) of people who consider your opinion complete and utter nonsense. And that's assuming all Christians agree with you, which I know isn't the case


Actually no. There's over a billion Muslims who agree with this very logical view of sex, and a billion Chinese with Confucius ideals that are very similar, in that sex is great, but use moderation and common sense. After all, if you actually got to know the person, you'd know they had an std, and then you'd not sleep with them, and natural selection would take care of the rest. Furthermore, if you chose to wait until you were ready to have a good relationship, in good health and good income, you'd be prepared for anything that might go wrong, and hell, you wouldn't need a condom, because using your mind means you can know when and when not to have sex, and enjoy it as you desire. You can take and have your silly life style. I really don't see any reason to follow it. It's not enough that you want everyone else to conform to your view, you want their respect and acceptance. Quite frankly, you've been told your actions lead to bad consequences. I neither respect your life choice, nor accept it. But if you needed help, I'd love you all the same. You're hatred is your own problem.



And as for the priest, show me a trial, and I'll gladly be the executioner. Love also means removing the cancer in a society.
edit on 17-11-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Maslo
 


What is, is death. What ought to be is what benefits Man, and ideally world.

In order for your statement to be true, prove to me why what ought to be is not wrong, when based in what is.


What benefits man and world is subjective. Your opinion is not supported by any objective evidence, stop pretending it is.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


dido



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I haven't read through this entire thread, just the first page.

As a man nearing the age of 40 by years end, I don't understand how a grown person could be sexually attracted to kids. I can't internalize it. It does not compute.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
This should also be posted in the prophecy thread about judgment coming to San Francisco for sodomy.

Maybe this nation will wake up with what happened at Penn State. To go away from God, to mock, to deny what He proclaims to be an intrinsic evil. Sodomy.

One of the perversions of sodomites is the Man boy perversion. It's abominable, vile.


_ _ _

What could end Rush Limbaugh's career?
Dr. Michael L. Brown - Guest Columnist - 11/15/2011 10:05:00 AM

columnists archives buttonDr. Michael Brown (FIRE School of Ministry)It was surprising to hear Rush Limbaugh say the words, "I don't have the guts to bring it up" -- but he did, on November 8, to his massive radio audience.

Rush Limbaugh lacking the guts to address something publicly? Rush Limbaugh not willing to tackle controversy? Really?



He was responding to a statement by a caller named Lawrence as they discussed Joe Paterno and the scandal at Penn State.

Rush: "You know, if I really wanted to retire today I could answer you in a way that would end my career. Well, of course I'm therefore not gonna say it .... There is a part of this story -- it's glaring; it's right in front of everybody -- and nobody's got the guts to say it. Nobody, including me. I don't have the guts to bring it up. Nobody does."

Caller: "What's that?"

Rush: "Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it, and that's all I'll say. If you can figure it out on your own, fine and dandy ...."

What was Rush talking about?

Let's put this in context. If there is any prominent figure in America who does not bow down to political correctness or media pressure, it is Rush Limbaugh. In fact, he's on record as saying that when people try to silence you, you should shout louder.

Long-time listeners of his show remember his 8-year assault on President Clinton as Slick Willie (an assault that continues to this day), his constant mocking of Vice President Al Gore as Algore (as in "Igor"), his reviling of the "environmentalist wackos," his attacks on the "feminazis," his mocking of Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan as Calypso Louie, his insulting imitation of Senator Barney Frank (to name one among many), his renaming of TV channels, such as PMSNBC, and his incessant criticism of "Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm," not to mention his frequent playing of the "Barack the Magic Negro" musical parody, featuring the "voice" of Rev. Al Sharpton.

He takes on the president, the Congress, and the media (not to mention his derisive attacks on foreign leaders and even radical Muslims), but there's one group he won't take on, one subject he won't touch.

What is it that, in his words, could end his career? What is it about the Penn State scandal that is "glaring; it's right in front of everybody," and yet "Nobody has the guts to actually give the explanation for what was going on and why there was trepidation in reporting it"?

Could it be that the sex abuse scandal involved a man allegedly abusing boys, meaning that the acts were homosexual in nature? And could it be that even Rush Limbaugh didn't have the guts to address this? (Contrary to the protestations of some, a man who is sexually involved with boys is a homosexual pedophile; a man who is sexually involved with girls is a heterosexual pedophile.)

Of course, the fact there are homosexual pedophiles does not mean that all (or most) gays are child abusers. Certainly not! And yet even Rush Limbaugh, it appears, would not address this directly.

Perhaps Dr. Laura, another radio giant, could weigh in on this. After she expressed her respectful differences with homosexuality during her shows more than 10 years ago, the Stop Dr. Laura campaign was birthed to thwart the launching of her new TV program.

According to StopDrLaura.com, "The year-long campaign against Dr. Laura ... so exposed Dr. Laura's anti-gay rhetoric to the world, that she could not even sneeze without the major national media, and thousands of individual activists like yourselves, watching, recording her every word, and pouncing when action was needed. As a result of the 50+ million hits this pro bono site received in just 10 months, and the 300,000 visitors per month that we continued to get throughout the campaign, protests were organized in 34 cities across the country and Canada, over 170 advertisers dropped Dr. Laura's TV show (including some 70 or so advertisers that Canadian activists got to drop her in that country alone!), and over 30 advertisers dropped her radio show, reportedly costing her over $30 million in advertising." (For details on this, including a simultaneous attack on Dr. Laura on the West Wing TV show, see my book A Queer Thing Happened to America, a book the publishing world felt was too hot to handle.)

Is this what the fearless Rush Limbaugh feared?

Within the last few months, both Microsoft and the CEO of Starbucks capitulated to gay activi



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
continued:

...activist pressure after two separate petition drives yielded signatures numbering in the hundreds at Change.org (that's right, in the hundreds). And one year ago, Apple caved in to gay activist pressure and removed a conservative political and religious app (the Manhattan Declaration), stating that the app was deemed "offensive to large groups of people." Yet Apple continued to host apps for anonymous gay sex encounters, despite calls for their removal. This is not "offensive to large groups of people"?

But we return to Rush. If, in fact, I misunderstood him, then he has my profound apology. If I understood him correctly, then he has my profound appeal: Speak up, Rush, and don't be afraid. Surely you have the guts.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Jesus needs a new Public Relations team/firm.
edit on 18-11-2011 by ILikeStars because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ILikeStars
Jesus needs a new Public Relations team/firm.
edit on 18-11-2011 by ILikeStars because: (no reason given)


Be loving ILikeStars, instead of a mocker, Jesus who made the "stars" would like that..



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


It wasn't intended to be mocking, or even entirely accurate. Not sarcastic, either.

That statement was only meant to be a little funny, but also a little true. I would consider the Vatican to be (at least one of) Jesus's Public Relations firms. Sort of like a company that specializes in manipulation of peoples' opinions to provide a service that makes public figures, politicians, and stars who are having image problems, a favorable publicity in the eyes of the people.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   


Look, it's really simple:

1) STDs exist, and they kill people.
2) Condoms protect against those STDs and prevent people from dying.
3) It's a FACT that the church tells people NOT to use condoms because of their twisted moral codes.
4) People die because of it.

If the church told people to use condoms like any sane person would, less people would die. So no matter how you try to justify this in your mind, the church is directly responsible for people's death!

That's why I believe the leadership of the Catholic church are a bunch of crooks, and I wouldn't share a tear if someone killed the whole lot.


Why on earth do you believe that not using condoms is due to a decree by the Vatican when the decree from the Church to not have sex outside marriage is ignored?

Eric



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ILikeStars
reply to post by colbe
 


It wasn't intended to be mocking, or even entirely accurate. Not sarcastic, either.

That statement was only meant to be a little funny, but also a little true. I would consider the Vatican to be (at least one of) Jesus's Public Relations firms. Sort of like a company that specializes in manipulation of peoples' opinions to provide a service that makes public figures, politicians, and stars who are having image problems, a favorable publicity in the eyes of the people.


Thanks for explaining.

Well, I hope before the Great Tribulation, prophesied for at the end of 2012, people in this thread, some, will figure out there have always been evil men and they come against Christ, the Truth. The fullness of Truth is proclaimed by the RCC alone. You have to separate Church teaching from those who come against it.

Evil men of the world are followers of Satan. Why are evil men going to abolish the most Holy Eucharist for a time? Because the Eucharist truly Jesus Christ.
Realizing this, could save your soul if you're anti-Catholic in belief at present.

God's love and mercy, it's all been planned out. Where there is much sin, much grace... the reason why God's going to bring about the Great Warning (Rev 6:12-17) soon, so everyone in the world will be given the chance to "see."



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
This appears totally misconstrued by HOW he said it.

He did not say he approved, we approved or they approved...he said "It is theorized..." talking about in the 70's...and also about child pornagraphing...IN THE 70s's.

I dont like the guy either, but its pretty clear he was describing another time when....
"...it was theorized.."

So when someone explains something...we condemn him for just MENTIONING it??

Witch hunt it sounds like to me. Talking to your cat? WITCH! Burn her!
edit on 19-11-2011 by LazloFarnsworth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


You would understand if you realized that the Catholic Church is evil.

Benedict was a Nazi Youth
John Paul II was a chemist for the Nazis

I mean, come on, it's all out there if you really want to know.....





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join