Is it wrong to want to die?

[Xavier363]

I'll respect your opinion, but i do not think you've seen the actual worst of man. Try to google some examples to read or search quora about the dark web, they are that evil that even reading it makes your stomach hurl.

I'll give you one story that isn't even the worst out there. There was this 5 year old Egyptian girl who was under the custody of her grandmother, now this girl was taken to the hospital because she was dying. She was covered with bruises and burns that were so bad that her leg had to be amputated. The doctors investigated further and found out her gentials where burned, and it was later discovered that the grandmother burned them to punish the girl for peeing and also to cover up for the uncle who was sexually abusing the girl. You think people like that deserve to eventually go to heaven? Those are monsters.

Unfortunately, there are many examples such as the one you described. My position is that while the crime is horrible, it is finite and the punishment should then be finite. The heinousness of the crime is only relevant in determining the extent of the punishment. It is not my position that the perpetrator eventually go to heaven (which I don't believe exists, anyway), just that the punishment not be infinite. The perpetrator could just cease to be after the punishment period expires, for example. I'm sure an argument could be made that after a sufficient punishment if the perpetrator saw the error of their ways, etc, that forgiveness could be offered. In the real world, I'd like to see society protected from the type of people you are describing. Lock them away, they die in prison, problem solved.

 

[Brihaha]

Hey. Sorry to hear about your browser restarting - I really hate having to write the same thing twice. I write into a text file, which periodically saves, and then copy the whole thing once I'm done.

What I got from the first paragraph of your response was: negative reinforcement in the real world is bad, but you have faith that there is another world where negative reinforcement is good and that is used to strengthen faith. I hope that I’ve stated your position accurately here.

My position is that using faith to make decisions is flawed. Just as a stopped clock is correct twice a day, occasionally using faith could accidentally get you a positive outcome. More often it won’t. If you have evidence, you don’t need faith. If all you have is faith, you are just making decisions on what you hope is true. That is the abdication of your responsibilities as a thinking person. Also, from your writing I’m sure you are aware, the Sharp Shooter fallacy shows us how we remember the hits and forget the misses. Faith only seems like a good method when it accidentally hits.

So, the god sacrificing Jesus thing. This has always confused me. I’m not really looking for an explanation, I don’t think that it can be done. Here is the confusing part: there seems to be 3 gods. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit - all existing in heaven simultaneously. If Jesus still exists and is in heaven then there was no sacrifice. God lost nothing. Jesus had a bad weekend and then went to heaven. The other part that I reject is the need for a sacrifice in the first place. Simplified, it seems that to honour a god, one would sacrifice something. Kill it, burn it, destroy it somehow. The more valuable the object, the more god would pay attention to the sacrifice. The ultimate sacrifice would be the most valuable object ever: Jesus. I don’t understand how destroying something valuable is somehow a good thing to the creator of the universe.

If a god appeared to me and I got a selfie, honestly, I’d think I was on a hidden camera show. To your point, however, if the creator of the universe wanted me to believe it existed, that being would absolutely know how to convince me. It seems a trivial matter. To me it seems that there are two possibilities. The creator of the universe does actually exist but does not want me to know that it exists. There is no creator of the universe. From my perspective each of these possibilities appears identical. Further, if I was shown evidence that convinced me that a god existed, I could then look at its properties and behaviours and decide for myself if it was worthy of worship. One requiring blood sacrifices, IMHO, would not be.

The unforgivable sin part. As a thought experiment I’ll explain my thought process on this. Say I’ve not committed an unforgivable sin - my destination after death is undetermined. Door #1 Heaven, door #2 Hell. I make a conscious decision to commit an unforgivable sin - my destination is now door #2. God is unable to forgive me and I’m going to hell. In this regard, I’m more powerful than the god. If the god actually can forgive me, then there is no such thing as an unforgivable sin. I hope that I’ve been clear in my description here.

I too am enjoying our discourse and look forward to your reply

P.S. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V...

I think we understand each other fairly well so far. You are forcing me to think deeply, which I normally enjoy. I've been cutting wood today and don't know if I can offer quite the vigor as you with my reply haha.

I don't necessarily think God will use any negative reinforcement in heaven, but uses it here to prepare us and weed out the ones who do not obey His will. When God uses negative reinforcement it is righteous. When humans use it we have an uncanny ability to complicate and distort it to the point it is counterproductive and even abusive. Either one chooses to heed His multiple warnings and/or learn from tribulation or he keeps behaving according to his own free will and rejects the offer of eternal life in heaven. There is no sin in heaven, therefore no need for negative reinforcement.

Regarding faith based decision making, I think we faithful pray God will lead us to the right choice if we can hear Him. I pray for knowledge of His will because many times I knowingly do what I want to do and it's not in line with God's plan I suffer the consequences. We humans are dreadfully flawed and have the ability to deceive ourselves with denial. Faith gives us the ability to use the misses in the sharp shooter proposition as motivation but without dwelling on them. Faith encourages us to accentuate the positives so we won't dwell on the bad stuff.

God did lose something when He sacrificed Jesus. He lost the best preacher to spread the word here on earth. And I believe we who are saved are required to sacrifice something valuable. Our will to commit sin. We surely cannot expect to simply say we believe in Jesus and attain heaven while continuing sinful behavior. Faith without action is dead. People will be surprised when they're turned away from heaven. God will say He doesn't know them.

I'm going now but invite you to peruse Anselm and his Ontological Argument. It's from a philosophy point of view and not a religious one. It is some deep stuff but interesting and worthy of a read. I did my final philosophy paper on his Ontological Argument. I was 45 and finally mature enough to graduate college haha. Peace

 

[Cis.jd]

It is not my position that the perpetrator eventually go to heaven (which I don't believe exists, anyway), just that the punishment not be infinite.

Even though you are not in position to decide, wouldn't it be wrong for criminals like that to eventually be able to get into heaven? The whole "cease to exist" part is probably what hell is, which is a generous concept to be honest because, as "unchristian" this may sound, I really can't find any reason why crimes like that should be given any form of human rights. Anyone who does stuff like what I described have lost every right of being human, they lower than roaches to me, and if in any case they eventually get a pass card into heaven, I would rather just walk off and leave.

 

[Xavier363]

Even though you are not in position to decide, wouldn't it be wrong for criminals like that to eventually be able to get into heaven? The whole "cease to exist" part is probably what hell is, which is a generous concept to be honest because, as "unchristian" this may sound, I really can't find any reason why crimes like that should be given any form of human rights. Anyone who does stuff like what I described have lost every right of being human, they lower than roaches to me, and if in any case they eventually get a pass card into heaven, I would rather just walk off and leave.

Just for fun, the catholic priests that rape children I'm assuming don't go to heaven. You would sentence them to hell for eternity, I would guess. Would you give the same punishment to those who support the organization financially? I mean, they would not have had the opportunity if not supported by tithing. Sure, only 10% of priests rape children. Would you pay a day care to look after your children if you knew that 1 in 10 of the care givers would rape them? I feel that we have known for a long time that priests rape children and supporting that organization is tacit acceptance of that risk. So, do supporters of the catholic church, knowing that 10% of the priests are raping children, go to heaven or hell?

 

[Cis.jd]

Just for fun, the catholic priests that rape children I'm assuming don't go to heaven. You would sentence them to hell for eternity, I would guess. Would you give the same punishment to those who support the organization financially? I mean, they would not have had the opportunity if not supported by tithing. Sure, only 10% of priests rape children. Would you pay a day care to look after your children if you knew that 1 in 10 of the care givers would rape them? I feel that we have known for a long time that priests rape children and supporting that organization is tacit acceptance of that risk. So, do supporters of the catholic church, knowing that 10% of the priests are raping children, go to heaven or hell?

It all depends on the severity of it and how much damage it has done to the victim.

The catholic church isn't the only organization that suffers with bad apples. There are a % of politicians or government officials in this country who have their own crimes, and you indirectly support them through your taxes. Do you consider yourself guilty for supporting them? No. You are trying to support the government but its just unfortunate that there are parasites with in it.

All organizations have their weeds that are stealing the water that was meant for the actual good plants.

 

[Xavier363]

It all depends on the severity of it and how much damage it has done to the victim.

The catholic church isn't the only organization that suffers with bad apples. There are a % of politicians or government officials in this country who have their own crimes, and you indirectly support them through your taxes. Do you consider yourself guilty for supporting them? No. You are trying to support the government but its just unfortunate that there are parasites with in it.

All organizations have their weeds that are stealing the water that was meant for the actual good plants.

So, your defense of the priests that rape children and the parishioners that support the organization is just whataboutism? And priests still go to heaven if they only raped the kids a little bit? Sounds like you are saying it was ok if it was just the tip.

 

[Cis.jd]

So, your defense of the priests that rape children and the parishioners that support the organization is just whataboutism?

My defense is that those priests are responsible for their own actions. They are tainting an organization, not representing it.

And priests still go to heaven if they only raped the kids a little bit? Sounds like you are saying it was ok if it was just the tip.

Not at all. It's just like justice system, there are crimes that warrant jail time and there are crimes that warrant the death penalty.

You see, us catholics we don't believe in just heaven or hell, we also believe in purgatory. No one can just shoot up to heaven and no one can just shoot down to hell, there is a form of justice that needs to be paid.

 

[Xavier363]

My defense is that those priests are responsible for their own actions. They are tainting an organization, not representing it.


Not at all. It's just like justice system, there are crimes that warrant jail time and there are crimes that warrant the death penalty.

You see, us catholics we don't believe in just heaven or hell, we also believe in purgatory. No one can just shoot up to heaven and no one can just shoot down to hell, there is a form of justice that needs to be paid.

So, the priests are responsible for their own actions - do they go to hell? That was the question that I asked and you avoided. The people who support the child rape factory that is the catholic church financially - do they go to hell. Question asked and avoided. Come on, you can do better.

 

[Cis.jd]

So, the priests are responsible for their own actions - do they go to hell? That was the question that I asked and you avoided. The people who support the child rape factory that is the catholic church financially - do they go to hell. Question asked and avoided. Come on, you can do better.

I have not avoided any questions, I gave you a straight answer in both posts, the 1st being answered through an analogy, yet you ignored that so i'll fling it again. Do you think you deserve to go to jail or get the death penalty for giving your tax money to corrupt politicians who are working in your government? This question is an answer to yours.

 

[Xavier363]

I have not avoided any questions, I gave you a straight answer in both posts, the 1st being answered through an analogy, yet you ignored that so i'll fling it again. Do you think you deserve to go to jail or get the death penalty for giving your tax money to corrupt politicians who are working in your government? This question is an answer to yours.

Sigh, why is it you think that asking me a question is a reply to my question? Pause, take a deep breath, focus, and just answer my questions. Then we can move on. I'll even answer your question if you will honestly answer mine. I'll restate my questions for clarity:

So, the priests are responsible for their own actions - do they go to hell? That was the question that I asked and you avoided. The people who support the child rape factory that is the catholic church financially - do they go to hell.

Just be honest. Be clear. And do not attempt to answer my questions by asking your own. You should know how this works by now.

 

[Xavier363]

I think we understand each other fairly well so far. You are forcing me to think deeply, which I normally enjoy. I've been cutting wood today and don't know if I can offer quite the vigor as you with my reply haha.

I don't necessarily think God will use any negative reinforcement in heaven, but uses it here to prepare us and weed out the ones who do not obey His will. When God uses negative reinforcement it is righteous. When humans use it we have an uncanny ability to complicate and distort it to the point it is counterproductive and even abusive. Either one chooses to heed His multiple warnings and/or learn from tribulation or he keeps behaving according to his own free will and rejects the offer of eternal life in heaven. There is no sin in heaven, therefore no need for negative reinforcement.

Regarding faith based decision making, I think we faithful pray God will lead us to the right choice if we can hear Him. I pray for knowledge of His will because many times I knowingly do what I want to do and it's not in line with God's plan I suffer the consequences. We humans are dreadfully flawed and have the ability to deceive ourselves with denial. Faith gives us the ability to use the misses in the sharp shooter proposition as motivation but without dwelling on them. Faith encourages us to accentuate the positives so we won't dwell on the bad stuff.

God did lose something when He sacrificed Jesus. He lost the best preacher to spread the word here on earth. And I believe we who are saved are required to sacrifice something valuable. Our will to commit sin. We surely cannot expect to simply say we believe in Jesus and attain heaven while continuing sinful behavior. Faith without action is dead. People will be surprised when they're turned away from heaven. God will say He doesn't know them.

I'm going now but invite you to peruse Anselm and his Ontological Argument. It's from a philosophy point of view and not a religious one. It is some deep stuff but interesting and worthy of a read. I did my final philosophy paper on his Ontological Argument. I was 45 and finally mature enough to graduate college haha. Peace

Cool. Actually, cutting and splitting firewood is really the only exercise that I enjoy. Something very primal and satisfying about it. I really appreciate your compliment regarding forcing you to think deeply. Awesome, and thanks.

After reading your paragraph about negative reinforcement in heaven I wondered if you had actually answered the question. Read it a couple of times, forgive me if I missed something. Earlier you agreed that negative reinforcement is bad, right? But when god does it, it is righteous. That is just special pleading. I’ll not belabour the point further here. The last line of the paragraph was interesting, though. If there is no sin in heaven, a smart god would just have made a heaven, populated it with people, and just enjoyed the menagerie. A god would not care how the occupants got there, it could just enjoy what it had created. No suffering, no hell, no mosquitoes (am I right ;P), no problem.

Now the faith stuff. Once a year I indulge in some favorite movies during the winter solstice (the holiday that was hijacked by christians along with easter, but I digress) and one that I enjoy is Bad Santa. My favorite line in the movie is delivered by Billy Bob Thornton to the dumb kid and goes something like this: “Yeah, well why don’t you wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first.” That is my position on faith said better than I could hope to. Deciding anything by faith, is just wishing into your hand. Have you seen the movie?

God sacrificing Jesus. Nope. Can’t agree with you here. When you sacrifice something you give it up, destroy it, etc. If Jesus still exists, then no sacrifice was made. If a god decided that it preferred Jesus to not be on earth, fine - but that is not a sacrifice, merely a relocation. If I move $ from one bank account to another, I’m not sacrificing the $ - I’m just making a transfer.

Anselm’s version of the Ontological Argument is just an attempt to define a god into existence. I’m holy (pun intended) unimpressed. Give me evidence, or give me a break. Hmm, I’m starting to enjoy my writing a bit, so I think I’ll take a break myself for now

No rush, cheers…

 

[Cis.jd]

Sigh, why is it you think that asking me a question is a reply to my question? Pause, take a deep breath, focus, and just answer my questions. Then we can move on. I'll even answer your question if you will honestly answer mine. I'll restate my questions for clarity:

I didn't just give you a question, i answered it and then followed it up with a question to explain it and also for you to see the logic in your question through a better perspective.
To me, you are avoiding the returned question because you see the point in it. You are not guilty feeding your taxes to the corrupt politicians in your government, just like practitioners are not guilty giving tithes that eventually get leeched off by corrupt or bad priests.

So, the priests are responsible for their own actions - do they go to hell? That was the question that I asked and you avoided. The people who support the child rape factory that is the catholic church financially - do they go to hell.

I've said it so many times, it depends on the severity. Did you not read the answer in referencing the legal system as an example? There are levels crimes that deserve either prison or the death penalty. Child molestation on a common basis would warrant just prison time, but that would also depend on the severity of it, such as the example of the 5 year old girl i posted. That to me deserves the death penalty, and also hell.

 

[Xavier363]

I didn't just give you a question, i answered it and then followed it up with a question to explain it and also for you to see the logic in your question through a better perspective.
To me, you are avoiding the returned question because you see the point in it. You are not guilty feeding your taxes to the corrupt politicians in your government, just like practitioners are not guilty giving tithes that eventually get leeched off by corrupt or bad priests.


I've said it so many times, it depends on the severity. Did you not read the answer in referencing the legal system as an example? There are levels crimes that deserve either prison or the death penalty. Child molestation on a common basis would warrant just prison time, but that would also depend on the severity of it, such as the example of the 5 year old girl i posted. That to me deserves the death penalty, and also hell.

Wow, you keep telling me that you have answered my question - why not just answer the two questions? That would really speed things up.

Initially I asked: So, your defense of the priests that rape children and the parishioners that support the organization is just whataboutism? And priests still go to heaven if they only raped the kids a little bit? Sounds like you are saying it was ok if it was just the tip. You replied: those priests are responsible for their own actions.

Again...

So, the priests are responsible for their own actions - do they go to hell? That was the question that I asked and you avoided. The people who support the child rape factory that is the catholic church financially - do they go to hell?

Two straightforward questions. Questions that you have repeatedly not answered. If you have given answers to these questions, please copy, paste, and accept my apology.

And, yes, I will absolutely be ignoring your returned questions because you cannot answer a question with a question. Until you answer my questions, I will ignore yours. Just pause, take a breath, put on your big girl panties, and just answer the questions honestly. After that, I will reciprocate.

 

[Cis.jd]

Wow, you keep telling me that you have answered my question - why not just answer the two questions? That would really speed things up.

Initially I asked: So, your defense of the priests that rape children and the parishioners that support the organization is just whataboutism? And priests still go to heaven if they only raped the kids a little bit? Sounds like you are saying it was ok if it was just the tip. You replied: those priests are responsible for their own actions.

Again...

So, the priests are responsible for their own actions - do they go to hell? That was the question that I asked and you avoided. The people who support the child rape factory that is the catholic church financially - do they go to hell?

Two straightforward questions. Questions that you have repeatedly not answered. If you have given answers to these questions, please copy, paste, and accept my apology.

And, yes, I will absolutely be ignoring your returned questions because you cannot answer a question with a question. Until you answer my questions, I will ignore yours. Just pause, take a breath, put on your big girl panties, and just answer the questions honestly. After that, I will reciprocate.

Here you go, copy pasted off the 1st response:
There are a % of politicians or government officials in this country who have their own crimes, and you indirectly support them through your taxes. Do you consider yourself guilty for supporting them? No. You are trying to support the government but its just unfortunate that there are parasites with in it.

I've said it so many times, it depends on the severity. Did you not read the answer in referencing the legal system as an example? There are levels crimes that deserve either prison or the death penalty.

How are these not straight forward answers?

 

[Brihaha]

Cool. Actually, cutting and splitting firewood is really the only exercise that I enjoy. Something very primal and satisfying about it. I really appreciate your compliment regarding forcing you to think deeply. Awesome, and thanks.

After reading your paragraph about negative reinforcement in heaven I wondered if you had actually answered the question. Read it a couple of times, forgive me if I missed something. Earlier you agreed that negative reinforcement is bad, right? But when god does it, it is righteous. That is just special pleading. I’ll not belabour the point further here. The last line of the paragraph was interesting, though. If there is no sin in heaven, a smart god would just have made a heaven, populated it with people, and just enjoyed the menagerie. A god would not care how the occupants got there, it could just enjoy what it had created. No suffering, no hell, no mosquitoes (am I right ;P), no problem.

Now the faith stuff. Once a year I indulge in some favorite movies during the winter solstice (the holiday that was hijacked by christians along with easter, but I digress) and one that I enjoy is Bad Santa. My favorite line in the movie is delivered by Billy Bob Thornton to the dumb kid and goes something like this: “Yeah, well why don’t you wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first.” That is my position on faith said better than I could hope to. Deciding anything by faith, is just wishing into your hand. Have you seen the movie?

God sacrificing Jesus. Nope. Can’t agree with you here. When you sacrifice something you give it up, destroy it, etc. If Jesus still exists, then no sacrifice was made. If a god decided that it preferred Jesus to not be on earth, fine - but that is not a sacrifice, merely a relocation. If I move $ from one bank account to another, I’m not sacrificing the $ - I’m just making a transfer.

Anselm’s version of the Ontological Argument is just an attempt to define a god into existence. I’m holy (pun intended) unimpressed. Give me evidence, or give me a break. Hmm, I’m starting to enjoy my writing a bit, so I think I’ll take a break myself for now

No rush, cheers…

Hello again Xavier363. Unfortunately as you begin to enjoy your writing I’m becoming less interested. We humans cannot presume to understand what God should or shouldn't do. Your apparent enthusiasm for mocking Him and ridicule for our faith has driven away my willingness for continued discourse. I do enjoy keeping an open mind and thinking about things outside the box. And I enjoyed our earlier discourse. But I am compelled to bid you good day and good luck. And if you feel a conscience about your behavior that may be the Holy Spirit which God put into man's heart. I encourage you to heed this conscience. It is never too late for salvation while you draw breath. Peace.

 

[Xavier363]

Here you go, copy pasted off the 1st response:
There are a % of politicians or government officials in this country who have their own crimes, and you indirectly support them through your taxes. Do you consider yourself guilty for supporting them? No. You are trying to support the government but its just unfortunate that there are parasites with in it.

I've said it so many times, it depends on the severity. Did you not read the answer in referencing the legal system as an example? There are levels crimes that deserve either prison or the death penalty.

How are these not straight forward answers?

So, to make sure I understand your response, I'll restate it here:

Yes, catholic priests can get into heaven as long as they only raped children a little bit.

Does raping children a little bit mean that if a priest raped 100 children gently that would equal raping 10 really badly? How do you do this math? You earlier referred to people who raped children as roaches. Perhaps there is a double standard here. For an equivalent crime, priest and not priest get the same punishment?

Your attempt to equate paying taxes with contributing financially to the catholic church is ludicrous and simply an attempt to deflect my question. I live in a democracy and taxes are used to build roads, hospitals, etc. These taxes are mandatory. People discovered to be abusing their position of authority are punished. Things are different in the catholic church. First, contributions are voluntary. Second, when priests are discovered raping children, the authorities are not contacted, and the priests are moved to other churches. The church spends millions of dollars thwarting the efforts of victims to be compensated. They have been doing this for decades. I feel that people supporting this criminal organization are partially responsible for the rape of these children. Do you? This is the question that you are unable or unwilling to answer. I'm sure this question is more difficult for catholics than other christians. Pretty simple for me.

 

[Cis.jd]

So, to make sure I understand your response, I'll restate it here:

Yes, catholic priests can get into heaven as long as they only raped children a little bit.

Does raping children a little bit mean that if a priest raped 100 children gently that would equal raping 10 really badly? How do you do this math? You earlier referred to people who raped children as roaches. Perhaps there is a double standard here. For an equivalent crime, priest and not priest get the same punishment?

As I said earlier, it is just like our own court system. There are crimes that deserve prison and there are those that deserve death penalty. Every form of crime has levels of severity, murder, stealing, and even sexual assault.. the punishment given to these crimes are all based on severity.

Look at murder for example, the justice given to murderers isn't fixed with the same sentence, it all varies on the severity of it. The more violent a murder is the greater the justice that will be served, why can't you understand that to be the same with priests?

Priests who do rape children are roaches, but the justice they deserve all depends on the severity. Raping and then burning genitals is extremely severe in comparison to groping don't you think?

Your attempt to equate paying taxes with contributing financially to the catholic church is ludicrous and simply an attempt to deflect my question. I live in a democracy and taxes are used to build roads, hospitals, etc. These taxes are mandatory. People discovered to be abusing their position of authority are punished. Things are different in the catholic church. First, contributions are voluntary. Second, when priests are discovered raping children, the authorities are not contacted, and the priests are moved to other churches. The church spends millions of dollars thwarting the efforts of victims to be compensated. They have been doing this for decades. I feel that people supporting this criminal organization are partially responsible for the rape of these children. Do you? This is the question that you are unable or unwilling to answer. I'm sure this question is more difficult for catholics than other christians. Pretty simple for me.

Not at all, im showing you how your logic fits. If you are going to accuse catholics of being responsible for the pedo priests because of the tithes that eventually lands in their pockets, then you should be fair as well and start labeling anybody else (such as yourself) who has been giving money to bad officials with in a system, because you are paying them through your taxes. How about the corrupt/racist cops who murder innocent black people, or since you are from Canada, Ronald West who raped and killed a woman? By applying the same reasoning as yours, you are a murderer because your tax money has supported cops like West. You must accept that if you want to be unbiased and honest with your logic.

 

[Xavier363]

As I said earlier, it is just like our own court system. There are crimes that deserve prison and there are those that deserve death penalty. Every form of crime has levels of severity, murder, stealing, and even sexual assault.. the punishment given to these crimes are all based on severity.

Look at murder for example, the justice given to murderers isn't fixed with the same sentence, it all varies on the severity of it. The more violent a murder is the greater the justice that will be served, why can't you understand that to be the same with priests?

Priests who do rape children are roaches, but the justice they deserve all depends on the severity. Raping and then burning genitals is extremely severe in comparison to groping don't you think?



Not at all, im showing you how your logic fits. If you are going to accuse catholics of being responsible for the pedo priests because of the tithes that eventually lands in their pockets, then you should be fair as well and start labeling anybody else who has been giving money to bad people with in a system, such as the government which holds their own criminals and pedophiles hiding behind a government career, in and you pay these people to have that power with their taxes. Your logic fits the same way here, you just want all blame against christianity based on your e-agenda here.

Your words: Raping and then burning genitals is extremely severe in comparison to groping don't you think?

Yes, I do think that burning genitalia is worse than groping. Obviously. So the burners go to hell but the gropers can still go to heaven? Again, seems like if the priests only rape the children a little bit, they still get a ticket to heaven.

The behavior of the catholic church protecting pedophile priests has been exposed and is well known. Where is your evidence that a democratic government systematically protects law breakers? Come on, dude, this is nonsense. You can do better than this. Taxes are mandatory in a democracy, tithing is voluntary. Criminals are punished outside of the church, inside the catholic church they are protected. I realize that identifying as a catholic, this makes you uncomfortable - it should. Look into a mirror, think about how the $ you give the church has been used to victimize children and protect the priests for decades, and then try to sleep at night. My taxed go towards punishing the priests raping children, not protecting them.

 

[Xavier363]

Hello again Xavier363. Unfortunately as you begin to enjoy your writing I’m becoming less interested. We humans cannot presume to understand what God should or shouldn't do. Your apparent enthusiasm for mocking Him and ridicule for our faith has driven away my willingness for continued discourse. I do enjoy keeping an open mind and thinking about things outside the box. And I enjoyed our earlier discourse. But I am compelled to bid you good day and good luck. And if you feel a conscience about your behavior that may be the Holy Spirit which God put into man's heart. I encourage you to heed this conscience. It is never too late for salvation while you draw breath. Peace.

I'm disappointed that you would like to discontinue our discourse; I was enjoying it. I will admit enthusiasm for mocking bad ideas; I think that this is healthy. Societies used to cut out the hearts of living people to ensure bountiful crops - I think that behavior is abhorrent. If mockery of bad ideas makes one uncomfortable, maybe that feeling should be explored. Why does mockery of ones beliefs make one uncomfortable? Perhaps the reasons for the beliefs should be explored. Faith in a belief is the shield used against rational investigation. I realize that you meant that "it is never too late for salvation" in a nice way, and I appreciate the sentiment. However, if I mock and reject the holy spirit, then I guess it is too late. Or, as we discussed earlier, god is not able to forgive me. This has been fun, I wish you the best.

 

[Cis.jd]

Your words: Raping and then burning genitals is extremely severe in comparison to groping don't you think?

Yes, I do think that burning genitalia is worse than groping. Obviously. So the burners go to hell but the gropers can still go to heaven? Again, seems like if the priests only rape the children a little bit, they still get a ticket to heaven.

Ok, so where do you think they should go? Should they go straight to hell, i thought you were against that whole "eternity" thing?
If these weren't priest, and just regular dudes, should they get the death penalty for groping just like rapists who raped multiple kids and killed them after?

You are ignoring the word "severity". Even in our own judicial laws base sentences on it. Not all murders, rapists, thieves, etc get the same sentence it all varies.

Lastly, you are talking to a catholic. We don't believe that people go straight to heaven they die.

The behavior of the catholic church protecting pedophile priests has been exposed and is well known. Where is your evidence that a democratic government systematically protects law breakers? Come on, dude, this is nonsense. You can do better than this. Taxes are mandatory in a democracy, tithing is voluntary. Criminals are punished outside of the church, inside the catholic church they are protected. I realize that identifying as a catholic, this makes you uncomfortable - it should. Look into a mirror, think about how the $ you give the church has been used to victimize children and protect the priests for decades, and then try to sleep at night. My taxed go towards punishing the priests raping children, not protecting them.

I haven't gone to church for several years mainly because of how I think every church is corrupt. I've expressed my distain for institutions here for years and have been almost banned several times.

I'm not defending the church, i'm just showing how your arguments are more of bias and an e-agenda of yours rather than reason.

One important thing is that not every believes or knows the money they are going to is supporting bad priests. So they are not guilty but more or so victims of being conned.

2nd, The point given over and over again is the catholic church isn't the only institution that has its bad apples. Every institution has it from the government, random stores, and even schools have it, you've read/heard news about teachers and underaged students, i assume. So should parents too be labeled guilty for supporting the school by having their kids enroll?

Also, so what if paying taxes is mandatory. You are still supporting the criminals hiding in the justice system. Look at that cop that i referenced, you still paid him so you are still guilty. Nazi's during WW2 where ordered to kill Jews, so i guess since that was an obligation, they are less guilty just going by your logic here.