Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Wahesh, Apr 7, 2020.
If you keep the 2 rules of Jesus, you automatically are keeping the 10 commandments.
Absolutely my man!
Rule 11 satanic bible
When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him
Funny how you state that religious people tend to lose logic when you question them about their beliefs, if you look closely at you post you may also see evidence that you have lost logic when airing your opinion about Catholicism and Catholics.
I understand that it is not logical for an atheist to accept the existence of God, "I could never count how many times I've heard this said "if their was a God this terrible thing wouldn't have happened", I find it funny that those who make such comments do not take into account the fact that Jesus Christ willingly allowed himself to be crucified.
The problem with some Christians is that they were told about heaven and hell and then want to keep their finger in the pie (so as to speak) in case there is a heaven and a hell. IMHO these people have not gone deep in the Christian faith ie. studying and understanding Christ's life on earth and at least trying to live it. BTW over the years I've known 1 or 2 priests who were not podophiles nor were indulging in sex, but IMHO did not live Christ's life on earth.
I would be very interested to know how you first started on this hate Catholicism thing, perhaps it was one your parents. I've seen many examples of people, as well as established institutions who's only existence is to do as much harm as possible to Catholicism, I can even quote criminal acts designed to harm Catholicism.
In your personal Hatred of Catholicism you made several comments based on your personal hatred.
(1) The church as a wealthy institution, this is as a result of holding on to real-estate for along period of time. The Church finances countless missionaries overseas doing similar work to what Mother Theresa was doing. You say that the Church has no regard for its parishioners, the fact is that the Church runs the St.Vincent De Paul society catering for the poor in our own Country,
(2) As for Confessions the Church teaches that we are all sinners and humbling ourselves a little should help us to become better, in fact we now have a saying that our Church is a hospital for sinners, because it was never intended to be a club for the pious. (I discussed this with a very devout Priest friend not long ago and we greed that a true Catholic/ Christian is one who see him/her self as a work in progress, ie each one of us should try to be a better person today than we were yesterday.
(3) As for the Church profiting from brothels, I find it very hard to believe it has ever happened in Australia, it may have happened in some very very poor Country.
(4) As for treating single mothers badly, I'm 1 of 8 children and while in hospital giving birth to 1 of my younger brothers in the 1955, my Mother noticed how nurses were treating un- married mothers badly, those days having sex outside marriage was taboo by many not only the Catholic Church. Lets not forget that the slogan sex sells has made unfaithfulness, divorce all types of permissiveness, including abortions a free for all, and if the truth was known our Country has suffered because of it.
I'm not going to keep answering a thousand questions on this. The two technicalities that Pell got off on were that the robes prevented him from exposing his genitals which was displayed to be a falsehood by someone who hasn't spent years wearing them. The second was the idea that no priest spends time in the sacristy without another clergy member. There have been examples of priests convicted of pedophile acts in the sacristy.
I'm entitled to harbour dislike for an organisation that has a long history of covering up a despicable crime against children. It's pretty telling that convicted criminals in jail are known to view pedophiles in the hardest light. Most peds in jail have to be in protective custody to guarantee their safety, yet one of the institutions that is supposed to be counted as trustworthy covers up these crimes.
On question 1. 200-300 million spent silencing victims is a huge amount to spend protecting their image. I'd much rather have seen them come clean about the cover ups by volunteering all information on those involved. They threw more money into keeping the information hidden. It doesn't mean that nobody has done good work in the name of Catholicism. But powerful people within the church have harboured criminals. They deserve any criticism they get until the day they come clean.
I'm not touching 2. Not everyone who confesses does so with the intention of betterment. Seems like a spiritual insurance policy for many. Again, not everyone.
3. Watch the documentary. I'll give you a hint though. You won't be impressed by what you hear. It wasn't a poor country, and the brothels being run catered to men seeking other male company.
4. Part of the reasons why I have issues with the religion is that thousands of children were removed into orphanages where history shows that pedophilia was commonplace and oversight by outsiders was not present.
Disagree with my opinions as much as you like. They are my opinions and they're not based on the idea of protecting the image of an institution that markets itself on being holy yet covers up despicable crimes within it's ranks.
I'll finish my posting history in this thread by reiterating the fact that I am annoyed by the fact that some people have been viewing the aquital of Pell as a clear indication that he did nothing. It was in fact an indication that it can't be proven with absolute certainty. So it annoys me that people see this as some great win for the image of Catholicism.
Actually it goes the other way... it was an indication that it can't be proven with absolute certainty the he was guilty... therefore he is innocent because he was never proven guilty.
It's fine for Alan to have views about the catholic church based on the church's track record from decades ago. But it's not Ok for him to keep making a fool of himself by misrepresenting and lying about the Pell trial.
There were no technicalities unless you believe that the rule of law and the correct usage of beyond a reasonable doubt is a technicality. And if you think that, you may belong in communist China and not Australia
the jury is meant to decide if it was beyond reasonable doubt, so they decided and if they were correct he was guilty then it should be described that he got off on a technicality
the higher powers didn't like the verdict and found a reason to release their friend
You described it in black and white - and that part is correct. The issue however is that this trial was very grey. Pell was never guilty beyond reasonable doubt... he was guilty because the jury's vision was clouded by the poison they were fed by the media. That poses a very interesting question. Why would the media manipulate their thoughts? The answer to that is because of who they are. So... who are they, who controls the media? Answer... the Jews.
What I find very confusing however is not that, it's the first appeal where 2/3 judges allowed the guilty verdict to stand. They are meant to prevent this from going to the high court, and I do not know what basis they did to come to their conclusion. Then you go to the high court and you would think surely it was going to be close, or at the very minimum 5:2. To go on and get 7:0 was a freaking blindside and a half. That my friends is justice.
Pell was guilty of the cover-up... fine. He was NOT guilty of this 'incident' though.
ah yeah, this is all just a conspiracy against the church, the victim is the church and pell
it was all just a misunderstanding, like one priest saw a wasp near one of the kids and tried to shoo it away but made inadvertent contact with his penis, then another time the same priest tripped and fell while a boy was peeing and the penis unfortunately ended up in the mouth
the media are annoying as fuck trying to uncover a pedophile conspiracy in the church, they should just go back to not reporting this and leave the church alone
And there he goes again changing the subject.
the penis to mouth contact happened, the hush money from pell happened, so the media is correct to hound them and the jury is correct to be biased
if it was a school principle accused of pedophile and the media found he lived with pedophiles and set up a hush fund then shouldn't they get in there and expose the situation?
Wahesh I consider you one of my my brothers on here, but blaming the Jews for the media coverage of Pell, and as such influenced the jury, is going against the logic that you use for supporting Pell, ie unproven wild accusations, speculation and victimisation. At the end of the day Pell got off..
I think I saw Pell while watching Preacher?
Royal commission finds Pell 'conscious' of priests abusing children in early '70s
Cardinal George Pell was "conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy" as early as 1973 and failed to act on complaints about priests, according to royal commission findings released for the first time.
The child abuse royal commission also rejected Cardinal Pell's evidence that he was deceived and lied to by Catholic Church officials about Australia's worst pedophile priest, Gerald Ridsdale, and Melbourne parish priest Peter Searson.
The findings made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse in December 2017 were redacted in order to avoid prejudicing the trial of Cardinal Pell, who was then charged with child sexual abuse.
Don't be silly the guy never covers up or lies.
I like how they refer to him as a Cardinal in 1973. Are people aware that in 1973 he wasn't even a Bishop... let alone a Cardinal? He was a regular Priest.
We need those High Court judges to take a look at this on Pell's behalf as well !
Really? Surely no..
Now the Royal Commissions verdict is out..perhaps it’s a case of you seeing Pell watching Preacher..but him denying viewed it..
Separate names with a comma.