Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[craegDAMH]

That's a strange conclusion. (btw he's a "trans child" not a "boy").

 

I was saying that society has a very selective recognition / concern regarding LGBT exploitation of children. 

 

And no I don't directly equate the 2 stories, before you ask, but I think dressing a boy in a skirt and heels and applauding his provocative behaviour ("strutting") highlights how unhealthy the LGBT attitude towards kids is.

 

Yet you seem to think I am blaming the boy himself for something, just as kelt blames catholicism for a homosexual raping boys.

 

What is with the major blind spot here?

 

What a fucking sinister post.

 

Firstly, positioning child abuse as "LGBT exploitation" of children is nothing more than you trying to explain away the institutionalised acceptance of this sort of behaviour which has gone on in the church for decades. Homosexual men aren't attracted to boys any more than heterosexual men are attracted to girls. Homosexuals are no more inclined to abusing children than any other group.

 

Secondly, describing the actions of a 7 year old child as "provocative" says a lot more about you than it does about "society" or about the "LBGT attitude towards kids". 

[maryhilldon]

dressing a boy in a skirt and heels and applauding his provocative behaviour ("strutting")

Bet you got a semi just typing that. Go and have a cold shower.

[Parklife]

dressing a boy in a skirt and heels and applauding his provocative behaviour

Even for you, that's quite the sentence.

[tiktak]

I am sure your parents meant well.  Passing on standards and values is fundamentally what parents do - it was no more outrageous for them to introduce to Christian values, than it was for them to teach you to say please or thank you, or (possibly) to raise you an an aberdeen fan.

 

That you have elected to reject these values, proves that you were not brain-washed and so don't resent them over it.

 

If you are a similar age to me, your experience of Catholicism in could probably be described mere fluff.

 

I would imagine (authentic) Christianity is more coherent and intellectually satisfying than the cult of "nothing made everything for no reason" but each to their own.  

 

Religion should be taught in a non judgemental fashion if it is to be taught at all. Kids should learn what each religion believes and left to make their own decision. Boils my blood when I see news clips of small boys sitting on the ground bobbing up and down reciting the Qur'an. In just the same way, we were told to memorise the Catechism when we started school. Mere fluff it is not, all of it is brainwashing. Don't care what you say, there is no proven truth in any of these religions. Some of us question enough to see through it eventually, others sadly don't which leaves the world in the state it is in today.

 

"Intellectually satisfying"? 

 

NB

I was brainwashed also to be part of the "Celtic family" (puke)   - that didn't work either.

[Poodler]

C_S faces relentless abuse and criticism and still comes back to the Hat

[Poodler]

He should let loose and post in the good threads

 

-News/Drinking/Hates/TvTHBMY etc

[Ke1t]

Surely dressing a kid in high heels is bent as fuck.

 

There is no argument.

 

That's the church for you, though. 

[Chewie37]

It may well be, but important to note that the man raped the boys because he is a predatory homosexual, not because he is a catholic.

 

This requires a bit of intellectual honesty to admit, of course, which has not always been your strong point.

It would be because he’s a predatory PAEDOPHILE. You’d need some intellectual honesty to admit that your penchant for blaming everything on homosexuality is flawed. Obviously it’s just a coincidence that the Catholic Church and other Catholic organisations attract and cover up these types........

[Bluto10]

C_S is good at doing long posts (which I don’t read)

coz u kant

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL

[Bluto10]

Maybe posting in those threads is a sin and he might go to hell

see when you pinged that fag in that boys eye, before battering him, did you say “and I’ll see you in hell” ??

 

No? Well you should’ve.

 

always wanted to use that line in a real life scenario

[Bluto10]

LOL

[Ke1t]

"Get the fuck off my dick." is also an option for the fag flicking.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Dl-5IWKoU

[Chewie37]

see when you pinged that fag in that boys eye, before battering him, did you say “and I’ll see you in hell” ??

No? Well you should’ve.

always wanted to use that line in a real life scenario

Trying to get out a clever line is always a fail in an adrenaline filled scenario, it would probably come out like “I’ll see you in Shell” and confuse the poor lad before he gets pummelled

[Henry]

 

NB

I was brainwashed also to be part of the "Celtic family" (puke)   - that didn't work either.

 

That worked on Clydeside Sheep particularly well. 

[Bluto10]

Trying to get out a clever line is always a fail in an adrenaline filled scenario, it would probably come out like “I’ll see you in Shell” and confuse the poor lad before he gets pummelled

I’ve watched too many mindless 80s action movies as a child

[alscotoz]

This blaming of priests fucking young boys on homosexuality (recurring theme for one poster). Let's humour that for a second. Were there no young girls involved at all in this kiddy fucking? I think there may have been? So, perhaps this should be blamed on heterosexuality? Or perhaps it was done for the purpose of procreating, as obviously no birth control would have been involved? Even the poster who stands alone would accept that young girls below the age of 10 (random number) are not usually physically developed enough to reproduce? Maybe they are, but then the poster who stands alone would have to introduce a scientific argument...which is good. But, but , but priests are celibate, they promised the fairy in the sky they would be. What gender does this celibacy apply to or does it cover anything that breathes? Is there a 'get out of jail' clause? All hypothetical.

 

Because the SICK CUNTS are PAEDOPHILES. That's it. Maybe the debate, (which only exists on here because it is only being argued by one apologist) should abandon labels (debating them seems pointless and a waste of time) and just use the term SICK CUNTS.

 

Let's remove the adjective 'catholic'. These people are not pederasts or homosexuals or any other deflective label apologists want to attach to them. Anyone who interferes with kids (and that includes women) is a SICK CUNT who deserves to be dealt with by the law...and then be dealt with by the law of the jungle in prison.

[Poodler]

David Bowie was a bairn shagger and he hasn't had any grief at all, which is a bit unfair

[BWG]

C_S faces relentless abuse and criticism and still comes back to the Hat

Because this is the only place he can share his views and he knows it. I bet his employer wouldn't be too enamoured if they found out that he supports paedophilia.

[Poodler]

Not a catholic defence, but just looked for a religion thread. This just came through the door. What kind of psychopath produces something like this? 
 

 

Points 10 and 11 made me chuckle

 

 

It’s a shame to add traffic to his website but I was intrigued to know what kind of man would put this through my door. Check out his debunking of evolution. I think RocketScientist would have a stroke if this psycho posted here. Look at his face, that’s hunner pircint a man that smooches bairns

https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/the-errors-of-evolution/

 

[dazzy_deff]

7 minutes ago, Poodler said:

Not a catholic defence, but just looked for a religion thread. This just came through the door. What kind of psychopath produces something like this? 
 

 

Points 10 and 11 made me chuckle

 

 

It’s a shame to add traffic to his website but I was intrigued to know what kind of man would put this through my door. Check out his debunking of evolution. I think RocketScientist would have a stroke if this psycho posted here. Look at his face, that’s hunner pircint a man that smooches bairns

https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/the-errors-of-evolution/

 

Would he fall under the 'mutant' category?

[Quagmire]

The Rapture.

GBN. 

[Parklife]

2 hours ago, Quagmire said:

The Rapture.

GBN. 

Better as a shite 00's dance tune 

 

[BrianFaePerth]

Decent song from a few years back

 

[Simply Red]

2 hours ago, Quagmire said:

The Rapture.

GBN. 

 

[alscotoz]

https://youtu.be/pHCdS7O248g

How do you post so you can see link preview?

[BrianFaePerth]

What’s it worth?

[Quagmire]

1 hour ago, Simply Red said:

 

Think I seen them down in Glasgow around about Echoes but canna fully remember. Indie dance floor favorites all during that time tho. 

[Simply Red]

2 hours ago, Quagmire said:

Think I seen them down in Glasgow around about Echoes but canna fully remember. Indie dance floor favorites all during that time tho. 

Aye they were nae bad. That was a good single at the time.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

9 hours ago, Poodler said:

Not a catholic defence, but just looked for a religion thread. This just came through the door. What kind of psychopath produces something like this?

Some type of protestant chap, I imagine.

This is what happens when people rebel against the divinely instituted Catholic Church - intended as an authoritative teaching body (a job it has done very poorly this last half century) - and instead invent their own systems of belief (invariably based on their own circumstances and opinions) which they falsely present as Christianity.

When you see some of the stuff, its no surprise that nations which abandoned the Catholic faith at the reformation are now largely Godless place, their replacement man-made religions quickly failing (Scotland being a prime example).

Some of his numbered points (pgs 2/3) are not actually not terrible (!), others are total rubbish.  But that is the most dangerous kind of falsehood, one which mixes truth with error.

So, yeah, a nutter really.

9 hours ago, Poodler said:

Check out his debunking of evolution.

I didn't read what he had to say, but its certainly fair to question evolution (or Christianity, or anything) and be skeptical about it.

I'm not heavily invested in the topic either way, but there are enough reasonable points of doubt: for example, Darwin himself noted that the fossil record does not support evolution and that this should naturally give us pause regarding this ideas.  This remains the case.  Indeed I understand the fossil record actually shows species all appearing at the same time, a conclusion the researchers involved admitted that they tried hard to avoid (showing "science" is far from being impartial).

Even contemporary scientists regularly question the theory in a variety of ways; but most of us don't get to hear about that.

I think evolution has become dominant not only because the media controls what most people know, but also because many people are frightened to question it, for fear of being made to look stupid.  These notions find fertile ground in post-Christian societies - because the desire to know our origins is innate in all of us - and indeed can be raised to something akin to a religious belief in themselves.  We see this with environmentalism, as well as evolution.  As the writings of Chesterton indicate, when man stops believing in God, he will believe in anything: Its a common belief today that a man can turn into a woman.

[Betty Swallicks]

2 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Some type of protestant chap, I imagine.

This is what happens when people rebel against the divinely instituted Catholic Church - intended as an authoritative teaching body (a job it has done very poorly this last half century) - and instead invent their own systems of belief (invariably based on their own circumstances and opinions) which they falsely present as Christianity.

When you see some of the stuff, its no surprise that nations which abandoned the Catholic faith at the reformation are now largely Godless place, their replacement man-made religions quickly failing (Scotland being a prime example).

Some of his numbered points (pgs 2/3) are not actually not terrible (!), others are total rubbish.  But that is the most dangerous kind of falsehood, one which mixes truth with error.

So, yeah, a nutter really.

I didn't read what he had to say, but its certainly fair to question evolution (or Christianity, or anything) and be skeptical about it.

I'm not heavily invested in the topic either way, but there are enough reasonable points of doubt: for example, Darwin himself noted that the fossil record does not support evolution and that this should naturally give us pause regarding this ideas.  This remains the case.  Indeed I understand the fossil record actually shows species all appearing at the same time, a conclusion the researchers involved admitted that they tried hard to avoid (showing "science" is far from being impartial).

Even contemporary scientists regularly question the theory in a variety of ways; but most of us don't get to hear about that.

I think evolution has become dominant not only because the media controls what most people know, but also because many people are frightened to question it, for fear of being made to look stupid.  These notions find fertile ground in post-Christian societies - because the desire to know our origins is innate in all of us - and indeed can be raised to something akin to a religious belief in themselves.  We see this with environmentalism, as well as evolution.  As the writings of Chesterton indicate, when man stops believing in God, he will believe in anything: Its a common belief today that a man can turn into a woman.

Mair chance of folk reading the leaflet than than min.