Rayman Pirate-Community

Spiral, your argument is so full of holes it's leaking liquified stupid all over the place. Some pedo priests doesn't make the whole organisation evil. If you wanna grill Catholics about their faith, ask them how they can follow an organisation that forbids the use of condoms, thus indirectly killing thousands of people who get HIV from having unprotected sex.

[color=#FF8000]Tobbe[/color] wrote:Spiral, your argument is so full of holes it's leaking liquified stupid all over the place. Some pedo priests doesn't make the whole organisation evil.

Thank you. About the rest of the post, no comment.

[color=#FF8000]Tobbe[/color] wrote:Spiral, your argument is so full of holes it's leaking liquified stupid all over the place.

No offense to Spiral, but that is going in my sig.

It has to be said, that is one of the funniest things ever said here.

Which is why it's in my sig.

PluMGMK wrote:It has to be said, that is one of the funniest things ever said here.

Thanks, but I doubt spiral is gonna see it that way. ^^

Yeah, Spiral, no offense but I think you should stop trying to be smart. Everytime I see you try that it seems like a bad joke visually to me. Use your own words.

Then how can you follow such a group?

And why would someone join the church and take a vow of chastity just so that they could abuse children?

I think it's more likely that the sexual repression the Church imposes on its members is what makes them do the things they do, don't you?

1. You would follow a church to preach, not to rape. If a priest in your organization raped a child, it would not mean your following would be a lost cause. Your intentions are (hopefully) good, in your own point of view. So, if a child got raped, you'd probaly preach for that child to recover mentally and physically, and that the priest would be punished and learn that was wrong.

2. It all depends on the person. Everyone is unique, and we each all have our reasons. We have values, and they take priorty in most decesions we make. When I make decisions, I think of my values and hope it might be related or in some way help me with my values. Maybe a person would join to have an image but then secretly abuse children, or did it honestly but had a sex addiction in the past, and it just exploded.

3. Eh, they should just leave.

Right now I could just say "the Catholic Church does not advocate child-rape", which pretty much invalidates this whole heated argument. Catholicism is something people believe in as an organisation - the actions of an individual slant this view in no way.

go on then say the Catholic Church does not advocate child-rape

I just noticed Tobbe's sentence explained my point in his sentence. xD Oh well I tried.

Also I am catholic myself and I do not advocate child rape. Obviously I am against it.

good to know


(steps away from Neo)

Tobbe wrote:Spiral, your argument is so full of holes it's leaking liquified stupid all over the place. Some pedo priests doesn't make the whole organisation evil. If you wanna grill Catholics about their faith, ask them how they can follow an organisation that forbids the use of condoms, thus indirectly killing thousands of people who get HIV from having unprotected sex.

The only part of my argument you made reference to was the part where I said "Corrupt priests = corrupt Church". I did not say that the existence of some paedophile priests made the whole organisation evil. I said that they make the whole organisation corrupt, which I stand by. As for your main point, I find thousands of children being sexually abused by priests to be more disturbing than thousands of people dying from sexually-transmitted diseases.

~FULL OF HOLES! LIQUIFIED STUPID! *KE! KE! KE!* Now now Tobbe, some respect would be nice.

Neo: The Catholic Church is not good. It sexually represses its members, even though this practice is known to lead to sexual perversions which have lead to thousands of known cases of child abuse. It is aware of this, yet it refuses to change the archaic rules in question. Is also makes deliberate efforts to hide the crimes of its members by shifting priests accused of sexual abuse to other parishes, thus protecting its own image at the cost of putting additional children at risk. The institution is corrupt. As Tobbe said, their forbidding of the use of condoms has cost thousands of lives. Are you religious, by the way?

Xenon: The actions of an individual? No. But what about the actions of thousands upon thousands of individuals?

Mlii: Thin ice. Thin ice.

Neo: The Catholic Church is not good. It sexually represses its members, even though this practice is known to lead to sexual perversions which have lead to thousands of known cases of child abuse. It is aware of this, yet it refuses to change the archaic rules in question. Is also makes deliberate efforts to hide the crimes of its members by shifting priests accused of sexual abuse to other parishes, thus protecting its own image at the cost of putting additional children at risk. The institution is corrupt. As Tobbe said, their forbidding of the use of condoms has cost thousands of lives. Are you religious, by the way?

Facts man. You state it as though it is a fact but where are your sources? Also I am catholic but I haven't been to church for some time.

neo wrote:

Neo: The Catholic Church is not good. It sexually represses its members, even though this practice is known to lead to sexual perversions which have lead to thousands of known cases of child abuse. It is aware of this, yet it refuses to change the archaic rules in question. Is also makes deliberate efforts to hide the crimes of its members by shifting priests accused of sexual abuse to other parishes, thus protecting its own image at the cost of putting additional children at risk. The institution is corrupt. As Tobbe said, their forbidding of the use of condoms has cost thousands of lives. Are you religious, by the way?

Facts man. You state it as though it is a fact but where are your sources? Also I am catholic but I haven't been to church for some time.

Very well -- I'll go through my post and list the sources for each of my points.

1. "The Catholic Church is not good. It sexually represses its members, even though this practice is known to lead to sexual perversions which have lead to thousands of known cases of child abuse."
Source

2. "It is aware of this, yet it refuses to change the archaic rules in question."
See my source for point #1 for the argument that the sexual repression of priests leads to them abusing children. The Church, as of 2009, still imposes these rules and refuses to change them (surely you're aware of this...?).

3. "Is also makes deliberate efforts to hide the crimes of its members by shifting priests accused of sexual abuse to other parishes, thus protecting its own image at the cost of putting additional children at risk. The institution is corrupt."
Source

4. "As Tobbe said, their forbidding of the use of condoms has cost thousands of lives."
You'll have to ask Tobbe for a source on this one.

~Your defence of the Church lead me to assume that you were a Catholic... my hunch (if you'll excuse the pun) was correct. I went to a Catholic school and was pretty religious myself for some time. At the time, I never dreamed that I would end up the way I am now, but lo and behold -- I grew out of it, and am now an atheist. I think that the religious views of those who are involved in religious debates such as this one should be made clear, which is why I asked you.

That is all.

spiraldoor wrote:As for your main point, I find thousands of children being sexually abused by priests to be more disturbing than thousands of people dying from sexually-transmitted diseases.

Except that compared to the millions of people who die each year from sexually-transmitted diseases (how many of them are Catholics I don't know), the number of children molested by disturbed priests is absolutely ridiculous. However, I still find the anti-progressivism of Lutherans much more disturbing than the doctrines of Catholics

I think this fact cannot be disagreed: the worst religion is the Islam.

What makes you say that?

There are worse religions than Islam. Some Christian sects, for instance. But considering that Islam has over a billion followers and a not insignifacant part of those followers insist on making women walk around in disguise, Islam is by far the biggest threat to Western democratic culture there is.

Islam is worse than Christian sects. Islam extremists fly planes into building and kill thousands of people; Christian sectists commit mass suicide and affect no one of importance.

neo wrote:Yeah, Spiral, no offense but I think you should stop trying to be smart. Everytime I see you try that it seems like a bad joke visually to me. Use your own words.

I find this message to have a rather boony fragrance...

~Just what do you mean by "trying to be smart"? Are you referring to my use of a relatively (for this forum) broad vocabulary and/or complex sentence structure? My occasional lapses into series of abnormally long and detailed posts explaining my views? Do I attempt to discuss things which you consider above me? Do tell. And I have no idea what you mean by "a bad joke visually"; perhaps something to do with the 'look' (or more precisely, the layout) of my messages, what with the paragraphs, tildes and all? And your demand to "use my own words"... I find this one quite ironic, given that I make a conscious effort to not repeat catchy phrases or sentences used by other users, and am constantly plagued by parasites who seek to usurp my lexicon.

Widespread adoption of Tobbe's quote for signatures is not amusing. I request the childish imitators to at least link back to Tobbe's post with their quotes, so that those who read it may be able to see exactly how my 'argument' fared.

Plum: The quote which now resides in your signature is part of an attack on an anti-Catholicism argument. Somehow I doubt you would have quoted it if it was the opposite; a part of an attack on a pro-Catholic argument. I have nothing more to say to you.

spiraldoor wrote:Plum: The quote which now resides in your signature is part of an attack on an anti-Catholicism argument. Somehow I doubt you would have quoted it if it was the opposite; a part of an attack on a pro-Catholic argument. I have nothing more to say to you.

Liquid stupid - it's just funny.

And by the way, who are these Christian sects?