Another reason why god doesn't exist (1 Viewer)

[jiggymcfizzle]

in reply
-yes i can spell
-no i dont have a point-except the one about god not existing, and the other one at the end about the priests was in response to people saying that its a cover up. id use the quote thing but this was my first post really so i couldnt be bothered finding out how to use it. i think ill do that now
-i wasnt poking at the title, im just proud of thinking that up myself and i enjoy telling people my beliefs. i dont know why tho
-i am typing away for the sake if it
-i am happy that someone responded to what i said coz otherwise my waste of time was in vain
-no i will not shut up
-make me
-im sorry your iq dropped. i could bring in a more intellectual discussion but i couldnt in a thread about religion in current affairs. it has its limits, and i couldnt say much that hasnt already been said, except hypothalumus
-i dont reckon im an idiot. ask me something and ill try to show otherwise. give me something worthwhile to do please. except shut up. dont really wanna do that.

and where did i spell incorrectly? would u like me to explain wot i meant where u complained about me not speaking english? it was a tad jumbled, but yeah i was just typing away

 

[Tulipa]

in reply
-yes i can spell

emprire, coz, soz, hav, theyr, ur, spitefullness, discush You also don't use apostrophes or capitalise.

-no i dont have a point

Then why bother posting? Oh right, because you have to go on to contradict yourself with:

except the one about god not existing, and the other one at the end about the priests was in response to people saying that its a cover up.

-i wasnt poking at the title, im just proud of thinking that up myself and i enjoy telling people my beliefs. i dont know why tho

Um? What? The thread title was a joke by Katie and your comments were idiotic and had no place in this thread. There is another "Does God Exist Thread", go annoy people there.

-i am typing away for the sake if it
-i am happy that someone responded to what i said coz otherwise my waste of time was in vain
-no i will not shut up
-make me

I'm just trying to make you see how pointless your post was and for you to go learn how to type correctly.

-im sorry your iq dropped. i could bring in a more intellectual discussion but i couldnt in a thread about religion in current affairs. it has its limits, and i couldnt say much that hasnt already been said, except hypothalumus

What? This board is FOR intellectual debate. So how are you limited?

-i dont reckon im an idiot. ask me something and ill try to show otherwise. give me something worthwhile to do please. except shut up. dont really wanna do that.

Sigh. It's like how crazy people never think they're crazy.

and where did i spell incorrectly? would u like me to explain wot i meant where u complained about me not speaking english? it was a tad jumbled, but yeah i was just typing away

Look above. Type properly please.

 

[jiggymcfizzle]

So that's your problem with my spelling. Ok, on 'emprire' and 'spitefullness' you got me, but are you that anal that u care about grammar? So if I don't use complete spelling and correct grammar it doesn't make the word, or my ideas, real? I don't know but you seem to be on the grounds that you're smarter than me so I'll take your word on it. See, I'm using the correct grammar and the like. Are you happy now, or are u going to keep repeating phrases regarding how much of an idiot you think I am?

These threads likely are for intellectual debate, but from what I've seen it hasn't always been intellectual. Pointing out each individual problem in a person's post, for instance the title of the thread, one's spelling, or one's inability to avoid personal insults, does not seem to me to be intellectual. It seems rather childish. From what you're saying it seems that you yourself haven't had much worthwhile to post either, other than judging other people, thus you too have been contradictory, and have furthered this in your hatred for those who are hypocritical. Basically I thought it was the norm to say things that didn't have to be stated. For example, where Katie asked Jimmayyy to provide examples regarding what he had said. That was not necessary, and she had asked for examples on several other occassions. As she has been the major contributer, I didn't think much of my own actions as they did not differ much from her own. As a result, I have brought another without ideas worth saying back into the "debate", ie yourself.

Does that have all the correct conventions, Miss? Do I only receive a five out of ten for my english essay? Did it lack the content relative to the discussion, making it less worthy of recognition? You're a pig-headed bitch. I can contribute something of worth. However, as I have previously stated and as you have ignored, the matter has been discussed to its entirety, so I will only end up supporting the ideas of others. If that is what you deem worthy, then I shall provide my own opinions, but only to please Your Highness.

Perhaps adhering to the strict regimen of their beliefs has caused the priests' psyches to contort, resulting in what has been stated by others as a desire to have a power similar to that of God himself.

Another interesting fact is that the majority of reported child molestation cases concerns older priests. This can lead us to believe that applying oneself to the workings of the church for a prolonged period of time is undesirable to psychological health. However, this can also lead us to the idea of a different conspiracy, when it is taken into account the huge amount of compensation provided for those who have been molested. In this case we can compare the situation of the church with that of Michael Jackson, where many were unsure whether a child had been molested (receiving compensation being a part of the retribution desired by the family of the child), or if the child and/or the family of the child were conniving thieves, with their minds set on acquiring a small portion of Michael Jackson's wealth ('hopping on the band-wagon). This leads us to the question: have these reported incidences truely occurred? How can we find the number of those who have reported was has not taken place, or the number of those who have not reported the molestation that has taken place?

I consider then, that the number of reported cases in the US, 7% of Catholic priests, is probably near correct, with possibly up to twice this number. What can be done about this? Does anyone have any considerable ideas? We should not jump to the conclusion that this number is the tip of the iceberg, because without faith in the world, what do we have?

In conclusion, I have finished. However, on a more serious note, unless you can debate this idea with me Your Highness, I shall return to my English studies. There, at least, I have found something positive found in your continuous insults regarding my use of language. You have prompted me to talk with eloquence, thus enticing me towards the study which I had previously been avoiding. For that I thank you, although for other reasons I dislike you greatly.

 

[Tulipa]

I've accomplished what I set out to do.

Proper grammar and spelling is important in every facet of life and it's nice to see that you've improved. I don't care if you hate me, you did what I asked

[although it really should be "you" the whole way through]

 

[jiggymcfizzle]

Damn I was hoping you wouldn't find that. Plus I used the word 'as' about ten times in a sentence. I believe that using different styles, or levels of correct grammar, promotes the ability to adapt to different situations. I doubt that is true, but it saves me time when I write. anways thnx for the tip. ill use the rite grammer k just 4 u and lets avoid callin me a idiot

Back on topic, I was just wondering what goes through the minds of those few priests as they're committing the deed. Something on the dirty side no doubt, but what drives them? Did they always think that way. I guess we'll never know for sure, since you can't trust the testemony of a man whose played the fool with a young'n. Ew.

 

[jiggymcfizzle]

reading over past comments i realised, proper grammar sucks balls and i shouldn't care what people think. ill spell correctly as often as i can since some abbreviations can get a little too funky, but that grammar can go and piss off. if u don't understand a lowercase letter at the start of a sentence i don't think grammar should be on the top list of your worries

now to the point of this. i was wondering if the church deals out medicines and do therapy work on any of them with that tendancy for pedophilia. if they are actually covering things up, which is a possibility in some cases no doubt, then they could cover up effectively treating it. it is treatable as a disease so perhaps they should do that. or maybe they do that already. who knows. church organisations are so mysterious and secretive. kind of scary if you think about it too much

 

[sp0ntane0us]

This is my personal opinion/theory on why there's a high rate of pedophilia among priests:

a) they commit themselves to a celibate lifestyle but then they can't handle it, and their sexual desires get out of control.

b) they were already pedophiles and they think a celibate lifestyle might help cure them or something.

 

[Jarsh89]

How does this have anything to do with God's existance? If anything, I think is is more evidence for God to exist. I can name 50 things that the Catholic church does under good pretenses which are totally unreasonable and not at all what the bible says. However how does this deny Go's existance? It just like saying because a police officer commits a crime, there is no law enforcement. No one is perfect and therefore most people cannot manage a celibate life without breaching it.

 

[chicky_pie]

But why are so many clergymen paedophiles??? It's almost synonymous with the Church now.

maybe cuz pedo's know where to go to a place where law cant be enforced upon them, where kids look up to adults, where pedo's can disguise themselves. Pedo's become priests!!!!

 

[chicky_pie]

How does this have anything to do with God's existance? If anything, I think is is more evidence for God to exist. I can name 50 things that the Catholic church does under good pretenses which are totally unreasonable and not at all what the bible says. However how does this deny Go's existance? It just like saying because a police officer commits a crime, there is no law enforcement. No one is perfect and therefore most people cannot manage a celibate life without breaching it.

the threadstarter, her father is a priest and did some unthinkable things to her while she was a child and at night, she's just taking her anger out online.

"WHY GOD WHY GOD, WHY DO DADDY GOTTA TOUCH MY VAGINA, NOOO"

 

[robbie1]

This is my personal opinion/theory on why there's a high rate of pedophilia among priests

Actually, the rate of pedophilia among Catholic priests is very low, and may actually be higher among clergy who marry.

Read up on the work of Prof. Phillip Jenkins (a non-Catholic).

 

[robbie1]

This sounds like it is, in and of itself, an argument about how dangerous and damaging religion is.

I'm fairly sure that of all the children who were molested, their chances of being molested would have decreased SIGNIFICANTLY if they were not brought up religiously.

Or is this nonsense idiotic notion of avoiding hellfire worth a bit of touchy touch and rapey rape for a couple of the tots, to keep the rest in line?

You do realise that the vast majority of child abuse occurs in the family, yes?

Priests do not live with their families.

Swimming coaches molest kids, teachers molest kids etc.....nothing to do with religion.

 

[jiggymcfizzle]

no i think he's trying to say that child abuse should not be considered a predominantly priest-related occurrence. its a good point. too many people stereotype priests with paedophiles and the rate of occurrence in that profession is not unlike the rate in other ones. sporting coaches especially, which is sort of creepy, considering most of us have probably had more direct contact with sporting coaches of some variety than with priests. id guess that, with the statistics and what not, at least one of us has been in direct contact with a paedophile before.

and the title was a joke, having a go at all the people who took major offence to another thread of similar subject.

good point: "they were already pedophiles and they think a celibate lifestyle might help cure them or something." hmm interesting

 

[Tulipa]

no i think he's trying to say that child abuse should not be considered a predominantly priest-related occurrence. its a good point. too many people stereotype priests with paedophiles

I think that that may be the impression you're getting from this thread but I personally don't do that and I know a number of people who don't either. It's not the most predominant stereotype about pedophiles. That's for sure.

and the rate of occurrence in that profession is not unlike the rate in other ones. sporting coaches especially, which is sort of creepy, considering most of us have probably had more direct contact with sporting coaches of some variety than with priests. id guess that, with the statistics and what not, at least one of us has been in direct contact with a paedophile before.

Unless you can find statistics correlating the number of pedophiles that are sporting coaches, then don't make statements like that. Then again, it's difficult to draw reality out of numbers. I think the example of the lawsuits against the Church and their stance on agreeing to settle does indicate guilt.

and the title was a joke, having a go at all the people who took major offence to another thread of similar subject.

We all figured that out awhile ago. I also told you that before.

 

[katie_tully]

why did i start this thread?

i must have DONE IT FOR THE LULZ.

 

[Enteebee]

too many people stereotype priests with paedophiles and the rate of occurrence in that profession is not unlike the rate in other ones.

The point is that the church is meant to be the paramount trustworthy organisation yet they have been found to be protecting many of these pedophiles. It would be understandable if there were merely pedophiles in the church, what makes people associate the church with pedophilia is the numerous examples where they have protected these pedophiles.

 

[katie_tully]

Why are the statistics I provided being palmed off as 'not significant' anyway. They were provided by the Catholic Church. And it was only a snapshot of paedophiles in America.

 

[jiggymcfizzle]

I think that that may be the impression you're getting from this thread but I personally don't do that and I know a number of people who don't either. It's not the most predominant stereotype about pedophiles. That's for sure.

That's good to hear. I, unfortunately, know of many who constantly makes remarks about paedophile priests whenever church-related subjects come up. I used the coach line on a few of them and it didn't really have effect, so I guess some people just don't like the church.

Unless you can find statistics correlating the number of pedophiles that are sporting coaches, then don't make statements like that.

I remember reading some statistics in the paper a while back that made me think that, but can't exactly find them. In that case they probably weren't accurate, otherwise they'd be easy to find. But I did say that I was guessing, not making a statement.

We all figured that out awhile ago. I also told you that before.

Yes you did tell me that, and I'm not sure for what reason. I'm sure that I took note of the other thousand times it's been stated.

But obviously "we all" did not figure that out a while ago, hence the recent post:

How does this have anything to do with God's existance? If anything, I think is is more evidence for God to exist. I can name 50 things that the Catholic church does under good pretenses which are totally unreasonable and not at all what the bible says. However how does this deny Go's existance? It just like saying because a police officer commits a crime, there is no law enforcement. No one is perfect and therefore most people cannot manage a celibate life without breaching it.

I figured everyone else was sick of replying to that, so I did.

This is why I'm glad no child I ever have will ever be religious or sporting. Damn if my kid's getting raped religiously or on the soccer field.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. Better to be safe than sexually abused. Our kids will end up fat but at least they'll have their innocence.
Then again, most child abuse is in the family. Damn, I guess the best thing to do is once the baby is born, send him/her off into the wild to be raised by wolves. Or in our case dingos. Safety first.

 

[jiggymcfizzle]

The point is that the church is meant to be the paramount trustworthy organisation yet they have been found to be protecting many of these pedophiles. It would be understandable if there were merely pedophiles in the church, what makes people associate the church with pedophilia is the numerous examples where they have protected these pedophiles.

Yeah true I guess.

Why are the statistics I provided being palmed off as 'not significant' anyway. They were provided by the Catholic Church. And it was only a snapshot of paedophiles in America.

I forgot if I said anything along those lines, so if I did then soz. They are pretty significant. 7% right? Does America have higher rates of paedophilia in general? If yes, then we could probably safely assume that it occurs less within the churches and religions of other countries. If no, then we're fucked. Either way, something should be done. But what? How do you provoke a change without directly challenging the church and offending people?

 

[katie_tully]

I dont know if America has higher rates than anybody else. All stats regarding Church paedophilia on any other country is about zip. Either way, 7% in a minority is a large number.