Is it wrong to want to die?

[Cis.jd]

Last point first because it is quick: A sucker.

Rewriting this here in the hope that you will take the opportunity to address the questions that I asked instead of, once again, your What About stuff.

Point Number 1: I don't put food on the tables of corrupt politicians. What I do is pay taxes to support the expenses of my country. Roads, bridges, etc. Part of what I fund is also the legal system, police, etc. When a politician is found to be corrupt, that politician is tried in a court of law and punished in accordance with their crimes. Part of the taxes I pay go towards improving the system and weeding out bad actors. Yes / no would you agree with this description?

Point Number 2: There is no legal obligation for anyone to fund the catholic church - this is a fact. Whether or not a person "feels" an obligation to support the catholic church - they have no legal obligation. Yes / no would you agree with this description?

Point Number 3: I have a legal obligation to fund the expenses of my country. Part of those expenses are used to discover and punish bad actors. I don't have a legal obligation to fund the catholic church. The catholic church has actively protected pedophile priests from discovery, prosecution, etc. The catholic church has done everything in its power to thwart victims from receiving compensation. Yes / no would you agree with this description?

Point Number 4: I have a legal obligation to fund my country which has a legal system to punish bad actors. I don't have a legal obligation to fund the catholic church which actively protects bad actors. Yes / no would you agree with this description?

Conclusion: Therefore people paying taxes in no way equates with funding the crimes of the catholic church. Care to point out any holes or fallacies here?

I numbered the points for your convenience. Go ahead and let me know which point you disagree with and why.

You see, Socrates asked questions to get people to think. He asked questions in order for people to come up with answers. He would then ask further questions depending on the answers that were given. He was asking questions to drill down to the topic of his questioning. He would simplify his questions in order to get to the core of the issue. This is the Socratic method. Answering a question with a question not related to the topic is not helpful. The failure to answer the question demonstrates the weakness of your position.

Pick a point, and tear it apart. Go ahead. Please, seriously, don't give me any what about nonsense. Just address the point.

Point 1. No. Because you do, they still get paid off your tax money. get over it.
Point 2. Yes, they dont have a legal obligation but it doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be a civil necessity, if the person feel they are obligated then they are doing so out of obligation. It doesn't matter if it is a belief. Christians believe they are required to help the needy, they believe it is a law given by God, so they are acting out on what they believe they are obligated to do.
Point 3: No i don't because it is still the same as a point 1 and 2. It all doesn't matter because you have still contributed to the well being of the corrupt official. You have placed your votes as well for them to be at a status in where you pay them.
Point 4: No i don't. You are not legally obligated for having xyz corrupt leader in office, you and your community voted them in there.

You keep playing this "you don't answer me" game, but you do that yourself. What about the McDonalds part i gave, where is that?

 

[rturner76]

First, I want to start out saying that I'm not suicidal or anything like that. I was just curious and pondering on the thought of why do people often think it's wrong if someone feels like they want to die. Don't majority of us here long to be together with the lord?

I often have feelings of not wanting to be here or feeling out of place in the world but the thought of being in heaven, with God, lost loved ones, without medical issues, aging, pain. All seem like very reasonable things that us Christians would look forward to.

Would love to hear your take.

You know it's kind of like the old saying "Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die." We all long for our father in heaven and our relief from this life of toil (by the sweat of your brow etc) Still we must endure this sinful life until we are called home.

Would I rather be in heaven with my Lord, my uncle, and my spouse? Heavens yes, but I still want to cling to this mortal life as long as I can. I think it's born in us to desire to live as long as possible. Even if we know our reward is waiting for us if we remain faithful.

 

[Xavier363]

We don't elect priests. They where the average person who decided to have a career in it and went to school/seminar. We don't have crystal balls nor are we psychic so we do not know which priests are good or bad. Regardless of the excuses you make, you have presented a faulty argument in which you yourself are guilty of, that is the point.

My mandatory taxes pay the salaries of civil servants. When bad actors are identified, they are punished. Supporting the catholic church is optional. When bad priests are identified, they are protected. The difference that you are ignoring is that my (once again - mandatory) taxes fund a system that tries to be self correcting. Funding the catholic church is optional and that organization protects pedophile priests.
Please point out the fault in my argument. You don't just get to say I'm wrong, you have to demonstrate this. Please do so.

 

[Xavier363]

Point 1. No. Because you do, they still get paid off your tax money. get over it.
Point 2. Yes, they dont have a legal obligation but it doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be a civil necessity, if the person feel they are obligated then they are doing so out of obligation. It doesn't matter if it is a belief. Christians believe they are required to help the needy, they believe it is a law given by God, so they are acting out on what they believe they are obligated to do.
Point 3: No i don't because it is still the same as a point 1 and 2. It all doesn't matter because you have still contributed to the well being of the corrupt official. You have placed your votes as well for them to be at a status in where you pay them.
Point 4: No i don't. You are not legally obligated for having xyz corrupt leader in office, you and your community voted them in there.

You keep playing this "you don't answer me" game, but you do that yourself. What about the McDonalds part i gave, where is that?

At least you are consistent. Point 1, all you said is no. Please point out a single thing that I said that was wrong in point 1.

Point 2, thank you for conceding this point.

Point 3, all you said is no. Please point out a single thing that I said that was wrong in point 3.

Point 4, all you said is no. Please point out a single thing that I said that was wrong in point 4.

I reread my points to see if I had made any errors or if they were unclear - I did not find anything. So, if you are going to disagree, please point out what you disagree with instead of just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "no".

I feel that something you may be misunderstanding is that I don't vote for civil servants. Here in Canada, we vote for the leaders of political parties. The leaders then appoint cabinet minsters, etc who then perform the duties of running a country. Somewhere along the line this includes the hiring of civil servants. Our legal system punishes anyone along this chain when they are discovered to be breaking our laws.

You almost got through a response with out a "what about", improvement of a sort, I guess.
Here is my response from a few posts back.

To address your deflection regarding McDonalds, and this is really super simple, if I found out that the McDonalds corporation was moving the manager from restaurant to restaurant to hide them - they were spending hundreds of millions of $ to thwart the victim from compensation - that they had been doing this for decades - I'd absolutely stop patronizing the business. Duh. As soon as I realized that, they would never receive another cent from me. Would I be culpable before I knew about the situation - no. Again, duh. But, just like the catholic church example, as soon as I became aware and continued to support the organization - yes, yes I'd be culpable. Pretty straight forward stuff here.

 

[Cis.jd]

My mandatory taxes pay the salaries of civil servants. When bad actors are identified, they are punished. Supporting the catholic church is optional. When bad priests are identified, they are protected. The difference that you are ignoring is that my (once again - mandatory) taxes fund a system that tries to be self correcting. Funding the catholic church is optional and that organization protects pedophile priests.
Please point out the fault in my argument. You don't just get to say I'm wrong, you have to demonstrate this. Please do so.

But it is also paying the corrupt ones. Not all politicians get caught, I referenced the 3rd world countries. They are still in power of there, because the poverty they create is also people they are swindling to keep them in office. You seem to ignore a lot of information in my posts. How can i continue arguing with you if you can't even show the respect of simple reading, unless you are intentionally ignoring it because you need to have a point?

 

[Cis.jd]

At least you are consistent. Point 1, all you said is no. Please point out a single thing that I said that was wrong in point 1.

Point 2, thank you for conceding this point.

Point 3, all you said is no. Please point out a single thing that I said that was wrong in point 3.

Point 4, all you said is no. Please point out a single thing that I said that was wrong in point 4.

I reread my points to see if I had made any errors or if they were unclear - I did not find anything. So, if you are going to disagree, please point out what you disagree with instead of just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "no".

I feel that something you may be misunderstanding is that I don't vote for civil servants. Here in Canada, we vote for the leaders of political parties. The leaders then appoint cabinet minsters, etc who then perform the duties of running a country. Somewhere along the line this includes the hiring of civil servants. Our legal system punishes anyone along this chain when they are discovered to be breaking our laws.

You almost got through a response with out a "what about", improvement of a sort, I guess.
Here is my response from a few posts back.

This is funny. First you are complaining about me not saying just "yes or no", and now when I finally do you want me to explain them (again). Which one do you want? Also, i did not just say yes or no, there are sentences attached after it.

Canada isn't the only country in the world, a lot of countries suffer from corrupt politicians who orchestrate poverties so that the masses dominate the population over the educated ones, hence making it easier to gain votes and retain their power. Regardless, no matter what intentions you have paying in Canada, the corrupt officials are still benefiting off of you. That logic you are giving in your excuses is the same for catholics who give tithes they are are giving their money under the intention of something good, its just unfortunate that the corrupt ones are taking advantage of it. Just like you are, with the corrupt officials in your country.

 

[Xavier363]

This is funny. First you are complaining about me not saying just "yes or no", and now when I finally do you want me to explain them (again). Which one do you want? Also, i did not just say yes or no, there are sentences attached after it.

Canada isn't the only country in the world, a lot of countries suffer from corrupt politicians who orchestrate poverties so that the masses dominate the population over the educated ones, hence making it easier to gain votes and retain their power. Regardless, no matter what intentions you have paying in Canada, the corrupt officials are still benefiting off of you. That logic you are giving in your excuses is the same for catholics who give tithes they are are giving their money under the intention of something good, its just unfortunate that the corrupt ones are taking advantage of it. Just like you are, with the corrupt officials in your country.

Sigh, ok, I'll hold your hand here.

Point Number 1: Sentence 1: I don't put food on the tables of corrupt politicians. Sentence 2: What I do is pay taxes to support the expenses of my country. Sentence 3: Roads, bridges, etc. Sentence 4: Part of what I fund is also the legal system, police, etc. Sentence 5: When a politician is found to be corrupt, that politician is tried in a court of law and punished in accordance with their crimes. Sentence 6: Part of the taxes I pay go towards improving the system and weeding out bad actors.

So, under Point number 1, which sentence do you disagree with and why. Stop whining and just answer the questions. You are trying mightily to obfuscate, deflect, and actively not answer the question.

Again with the "what about" stuff. Duh, Canada is not the only country in the world. Tithing is optional, taxes are not.

 

[Xavier363]

This is funny. First you are complaining about me not saying just "yes or no", and now when I finally do you want me to explain them (again). Which one do you want? Also, i did not just say yes or no, there are sentences attached after it.

Canada isn't the only country in the world, a lot of countries suffer from corrupt politicians who orchestrate poverties so that the masses dominate the population over the educated ones, hence making it easier to gain votes and retain their power. Regardless, no matter what intentions you have paying in Canada, the corrupt officials are still benefiting off of you. That logic you are giving in your excuses is the same for catholics who give tithes they are are giving their money under the intention of something good, its just unfortunate that the corrupt ones are taking advantage of it. Just like you are, with the corrupt officials in your country.

Perhaps I can offer you a way out. You are angry. It is very clear that you do not like me personally. You are taking a position that you are unable to defend, and that just makes you more angry. I've been wrong before and when that is pointed out I don't enjoy it.

No shame in admitting that you are wrong once this has been made clear to you. Originally, I wanted to know if you thought that the priests that raped children would go to heaven. If I remember correctly, you thought that they could as long as they only raped a few children, or only groped a bunch of them. After that, I asked if people who supported the catholic church that protected these priests were complicit in these crimes if they were aware that the church was protecting them. This was the point where you dug in your heels and claimed that I was just as guilty as the people supporting the church. Obviously, this is ludicrous, but you are angry. Anger makes us behave in illogical ways. I get that.

You don't like me. I assert that 2 plus 3 = 5. You know I'm right, but even this small concession probably irks you.

So, just admit that paying mandatory taxes is not the same as optionally financially supporting the catholic church. Admit that people knowingly supporting the protection of pedophile priests are complicit (not equal) in the raping of children. Admit that this got out of hand, and we can move on.

I've got another die to get to heaven question after we get past this.

 

[Cis.jd]

Perhaps I can offer you a way out. You are angry. It is very clear that you do not like me personally. You are taking a position that you are unable to defend, and that just makes you more angry. I've been wrong before and when that is pointed out I don't enjoy it.

I don't like mostly everyone on this site. Welcome to the club. I've defended my position very well since your responses where pretending answers never existed, to even limiting what I can/can't answer with, in addition to ignoring various questions challenging your reasoning.

No shame in admitting that you are wrong once this has been made clear to you. Originally, I wanted to know if you thought that the priests that raped children would go to heaven. If I remember correctly, you thought that they could as long as they only raped a few children, or only groped a bunch of them. After that, I asked if people who supported the catholic church that protected these priests were complicit in these crimes if they were aware that the church was protecting them. This was the point where you dug in your heels and claimed that I was just as guilty as the people supporting the church. Obviously, this is ludicrous, but you are angry. Anger makes us behave in illogical ways. I get that.

Bro, your arguments have been shown to be that bad that I was clearly repeating it over and over again, trying to simplify it even more with every additional post and yet you still replied as if you didn't understand it or didn't want to touch it.

So, just admit that paying mandatory taxes is not the same as optionally financially supporting the catholic church. Admit that people knowingly supporting the protection of pedophile priests are complicit (not equal) in the raping of children. Admit that this got out of hand, and we can move on.

I've got another die to get to heaven question after we get past this.

I don't need to admit anything. You do. You want the Catholic church to be the only one guilty of this to save face. You have yet to make any comment about those living in 3rd world countries, in addition to other things that where given to challenge you such as the McDonalds part that i referenced.. but you dodged them. Most atheists who are unexperienced tend to go for ego over reason, hopefully in future arguments you'd be doing the later.

 

[Cis.jd]

Sigh, ok, I'll hold your hand here.

Point Number 1: Sentence 1: I don't put food on the tables of corrupt politicians. Sentence 2: What I do is pay taxes to support the expenses of my country. Sentence 3: Roads, bridges, etc. Sentence 4: Part of what I fund is also the legal system, police, etc. Sentence 5: When a politician is found to be corrupt, that politician is tried in a court of law and punished in accordance with their crimes. Sentence 6: Part of the taxes I pay go towards improving the system and weeding out bad actors.

So, under Point number 1, which sentence do you disagree with and why. Stop whining and just answer the questions. You are trying mightily to obfuscate, deflect, and actively not answer the question.

Again with the "what about" stuff. Duh, Canada is not the only country in the world. Tithing is optional, taxes are not.

The earlier post you were going off as to how the responses I gave where just "yes/no's" with "no explanation". LOL

1. Yes you do. If you pay taxes, you are paying them
2-4. Yes, that is your intention but sadly your money is still landing in the pockets of the corrupt
5. Not in every country, this is the 3rd time this has been referenced. This was explained twice.
6. That is your intention again, but your money is still going to a corrupt official regardless if you intended it or not.

What you missed out, is that all your excuses that you just gave is the same reasoning that Catholics have with tithes, this was explained. Re-read it. You are rehashing arguments that have already been countered, and you've clearly ignored the points given in the responses to them.

 

[Xavier363]

I don't like mostly everyone on this site. Welcome to the club. I've defended my position very well since your responses where pretending answers never existed, to even limiting what I can/can't answer with, in addition to ignoring various questions challenging your reasoning.



Bro, your arguments have been shown to be that bad that I was clearly repeating it over and over again, trying to simplify it even more with every additional post and yet you still replied as if you didn't understand it or didn't want to touch it.



I don't need to admit anything. You do. You want the Catholic church to be the only one guilty of this to save face. You have yet to make any comment about those living in 3rd world countries, in addition to other things that where given to challenge you such as the McDonalds part that i referenced.. but you dodged them. Most atheists who are unexperienced tend to go for ego over reason, hopefully in future arguments you'd be doing the later.

You have claimed to defend you positions, this is a lie. Go ahead, point 1 - which sentence to you disagree with and why.

You claim that my arguments have been shown to be bad. Go ahead and show it. You are lying.

Please tell me what I need to admit? You are intentionally unclear. Consistently. Again, the what about stuff. The catholic church to be the only one guilty - What about, what about, what about. All organizations that protect people raping children are bad. What about the third world, what about, what about, what about. Dude, address the arguments with out deflecting with what about. But, you are unwilling to, so you lie and say you did.

Dude, I answered the McDonalds question twice now. Here it is for the third time:

To address your deflection regarding McDonalds, and this is really super simple, if I found out that the McDonalds corporation was moving the manager from restaurant to restaurant to hide them - they were spending hundreds of millions of $ to thwart the victim from compensation - that they had been doing this for decades - I'd absolutely stop patronizing the business. Duh. As soon as I realized that, they would never receive another cent from me. Would I be culpable before I knew about the situation - no. Again, duh. But, just like the catholic church example, as soon as I became aware and continued to support the organization - yes, yes I'd be culpable. Pretty straight forward stuff here.

Laid out my response three times. Quoting twice from this site. You used the word dodged - I don't think this word means what you think it means.

So, liar liar, pants on fire. Even the simplest question you cannot answer honestly. Point 1 - which sentence do you disagree with. I've been super duper patient. Please show how my argument is bad. For someone as smart as you, this should be trivial. Go ahead, take a stab at it. I'll make some more popcorn.

 

[Xavier363]

The earlier post you were going off as to how the responses I gave where just "yes/no's" with "no explanation". LOL

1. Yes you do. If you pay taxes, you are paying them
2-4. Yes, that is your intention but sadly your money is still landing in the pockets of the corrupt
5. Not in every country, this is the 3rd time this has been referenced. This was explained twice.
6. That is your intention again, but your money is still going to a corrupt official regardless if you intended it or not.

What you missed out, is that all your excuses that you just gave is the same reasoning that Catholics have with tithes, this was explained. Re-read it. You are rehashing arguments that have already been countered, and you've clearly ignored the points given in the responses to them.

1) You seem to think that by paying taxes I'm somehow directly giving $ to bad people. This is false. I'm paying mandatory taxes to my government. That $ is then used to fund the running of the country. If some of that $ goes to a bad person before (and I've really been clear here repeatedly) that person is found to be a bad person - I'm not directly giving $ to the bad person. Once the bad person is found out, they no longer will be paid and will be prosecuted. Your position is petulant and moronic. If I pay taxes that funds the education system and a student educated by that system later goes on to commit a crime, did I pay that student to commit a crime? Of course not. Grow up, and act like an adult.

2) I pay taxes to support the expenses of my country. Do you somehow disagree with this statement. I'd really like to hear your explanation for disagreement with this super simple, obvious statement.

3) Roads, bridges, etc. These are things that my taxes fund. Disagree with this statement?

4) Part of what I fund is the legal system. Disagree with this statement. It is obviously factually accurate. Please tell me how my taxes do not fund the legal system in my country. I'm eagerly waiting to hear your response to this one.

5) When a politician is found to be corrupt, that politician is tried in a court of law and punished in accordance with their crimes. Your reply of "not in every country" is your favorite hobby horse named "what about". What are you talking about?? Do you live in a country where when people are found to be committing crimes the legal system does not punish them? Would you like to live in such a country? Are you advocating for such a system? You said that you have addressed this issue, humor me. Please explain how if there are countries that are not successful at always punishing every single person guilty of a crime, is remotely relevant? My taxes fund the system that tries to punish people committing crimes.

6) Part of the taxes I pay go towards improving the system and weeding out bad actors. What part of this statement do you disagree with. What part is false. What part could you possibly have a problem with? The moment bad actors are identified, the system kicks in to punish them. With the catholic church, the moment bad actors are identified, the system kicks in to hide them, to protect them, to relocate them, to thwart compensation to victims.

I'm not making excuses. Please quote something that you think is an excuse, in context, and I'll address it. Good luck. I'm stating facts. Facts that you find uncomfortable. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Facts are just that - facts. All 6 of my points are facts.

Intention is very relevant here. I don't know where you live but in most legal systems intention is crucial when determining the punishment for a crime. Ever hear of degrees of murder? First, second, manslaughter, etc? If bad actors are on the payroll BEFORE they are discovered to be bad actors, then there was NEVER the INTENTION of paying them to BE BAD ACTORS. Therefore, I've never been guilty of giving $ to bad actors. The catholic church HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR DECADES!! Intention matters. Intention is crucial to determining fault / guilt. Is this finally clear to you? Or is it time for the fingers to go in the ears and shout La La La La La La La La La La La La?.....

Why is admitting that people voluntarily supporting the child rape factory that is the catholic church engenders so much push back from you? Are / were you a priest? Were you a victim? For both, I hope not.

Clearly you think that supporting the catholic church (that protects pedophile priests) is a good thing. I don't. To defend your position, you fallaciously equate paying taxes to supporting pedophiles. That is just completely idiotic. I've never come across someone arguing this position before.

 

[Cis.jd]

1) You seem to think that by paying taxes I'm somehow directly giving $ to bad people. This is false. I'm paying mandatory taxes to my government. That $ is then used to fund the running of the country. If some of that $ goes to a bad person before (and I've really been clear here repeatedly) that person is found to be a bad person - I'm not directly giving $ to the bad person. Once the bad person is found out, they no longer will be paid and will be prosecuted. Your position is petulant and moronic. If I pay taxes that funds the education system and a student educated by that system later goes on to commit a crime, did I pay that student to commit a crime? Of course not. Grow up, and act like an adult.

2) I pay taxes to support the expenses of my country. Do you somehow disagree with this statement. I'd really like to hear your explanation for disagreement with this super simple, obvious statement.

3) Roads, bridges, etc. These are things that my taxes fund. Disagree with this statement?

4) Part of what I fund is the legal system. Disagree with this statement. It is obviously factually accurate. Please tell me how my taxes do not fund the legal system in my country. I'm eagerly waiting to hear your response to this one.

5) When a politician is found to be corrupt, that politician is tried in a court of law and punished in accordance with their crimes. Your reply of "not in every country" is your favorite hobby horse named "what about". What are you talking about?? Do you live in a country where when people are found to be committing crimes the legal system does not punish them? Would you like to live in such a country? Are you advocating for such a system? You said that you have addressed this issue, humor me. Please explain how if there are countries that are not successful at always punishing every single person guilty of a crime, is remotely relevant? My taxes fund the system that tries to punish people committing crimes.

6) Part of the taxes I pay go towards improving the system and weeding out bad actors. What part of this statement do you disagree with. What part is false. What part could you possibly have a problem with? The moment bad actors are identified, the system kicks in to punish them. With the catholic church, the moment bad actors are identified, the system kicks in to hide them, to protect them, to relocate them, to thwart compensation to victims.

1. Over and over again. Do you read posts or just stop at a sentence?
Regardless of what you are intentionally paying for, those corrupt officials are still getting paid by you as well. Even if you are not giving it directly. What you do not realize is that you are actually explaining what Catholics intend to when giving tithes. No one knows which priest is bad, just as much as you don't know what politician is bad. Come on. You are really just a biased atheist with an ego over here.

I'm not making excuses. Please quote something that you think is an excuse, in context, and I'll address it. Good luck. I'm stating facts. Facts that you find uncomfortable. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Facts are just that - facts. All 6 of my points are facts.

Intention is very relevant here. I don't know where you live but in most legal systems intention is crucial when determining the punishment for a crime. Ever hear of degrees of murder? First, second, manslaughter, etc? If bad actors are on the payroll BEFORE they are discovered to be bad actors, then there was NEVER the INTENTION of paying them to BE BAD ACTORS. Therefore, I've never been guilty of giving $ to bad actors. The catholic church HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR DECADES!! Intention matters. Intention is crucial to determining fault / guilt. Is this finally clear to you? Or is it time for the fingers to go in the ears and shout La La La La La La La La La La La La?.....

Why is admitting that people voluntarily supporting the child rape factory that is the catholic church engenders so much push back from you? Are / were you a priest? Were you a victim? For both, I hope not.

Clearly you think that supporting the catholic church (that protects pedophile priests) is a good thing. I don't. To defend your position, you fallaciously equate paying taxes to supporting pedophiles. That is just completely idiotic. I've never come across someone arguing this position before.

Yes, Intention is relevant here. That is the point! That is why your argument about catholics being guilty for giving tithes that eventually land in the pockets of a corrupt priest is obtuse. Catholics have no intention of giving their money to them, as you said is just 10% of Priests in the church, they are giving it for positive purposes just like how you just stated your reasons for supporting the government.

I've never said supporting the church is a good thing, but i'm just telling you how your argument is just bad and silly, and I effectively doing so just by how much repetitive nonsense you've been replying in each post. You can't even admit or see your own hypocrisy in your own logic and you are coming off as dishonest and just one sided. You really are not here for reason just an atheist ego. You lost the argument, get over it.

 

[Xavier363]

1. Over and over again. Do you read posts or just stop at a sentence?
Regardless of what you are intentionally paying for, those corrupt officials are still getting paid by you as well. Even if you are not giving it directly. What you do not realize is that you are actually explaining what Catholics intend to when giving tithes. No one knows which priest is bad, just as much as you don't know what politician is bad. Come on. You are really just a biased atheist with an ego over here.



Yes, Intention is relevant here. That is the point! That is why your argument about catholics being guilty for giving tithes that eventually land in the pockets of a corrupt priest is obtuse. Catholics have no intention of giving their money to them, as you said is just 10% of Priests in the church, they are giving it for positive purposes just like how you just stated your reasons for supporting the government.

I've never said supporting the church is a good thing, but i'm just telling you how your argument is just bad and silly, and I effectively doing so just by how much repetitive nonsense you've been replying in each post. You can't even admit or see your own hypocrisy in your own logic and you are coming off as dishonest and just one sided. You really are not here for reason just an atheist ego. You lost the argument, get over it.

So, once again (no surprise here) you did not address a single question that I presented. The questions that I've presented multiple times. I'll hold your hand here again. I wonder if you can answer even one single question? Lets see, shall we?

2) I pay taxes to support the expenses of my country. Do you somehow disagree with this statement.

Your words:

Yes, Intention is relevant here. That is the point!

Your words:

Regardless of what you are intentionally paying for, those corrupt officials are still getting paid by you as well.

So, um, yeah. I'd say that you lose. Your argument is super stupid. You contradict your self. You fail to point out anything that I've stated as facts to be wrong. And, you are trying to support the child rape factory that is the catholic church. Dude, you are just on the wrong side of humanity.

Yes, I read your statements, its just that your arguments are so stupid. Go ahead, try to state your argument that because I pay taxes I'm just as guilty as people supporting the catholic church that protects pedophiles. Go ahead. I've asked you to do this several times, you have never made an argument. Your position is just so stupid. And you are supporting protecting pedophiles. And the root of your position is still "what about" ism. Priests rape children, but what about you paying taxes?!?!?!? You are an idiot.

Go ahead, I'd like you to answer the single question above:
I pay taxes to support the expenses of my country. Do you somehow disagree with this statement?
I'm pretty sure that you won't answer the question. It will show the level of your dishonesty. Again.

 

[Cis.jd]

So, once again (no surprise here) you did not address a single question that I presented. The questions that I've presented multiple times. I'll hold your hand here again. I wonder if you can answer even one single question? Lets see, shall we?

You've been repeating the same thing as to how your $ is going to the bad politicians in every post, and its been answered in every reply i've made.
It's as if you don't understand the argument and even your own arguments. Either that or you are in full denial and do not want to accept how hypocritical and poor your case is.

Every question you gave was answered repeatedly. You on the other hand have refused to answer the questions given to you as a counter response.

So, um, yeah. I'd say that you lose. Your argument is super stupid. You contradict your self. You fail to point out anything that I've stated as facts to be wrong. And, you are trying to support the child rape factory that is the catholic church. Dude, you are just on the wrong side of humanity.

Yes, I read your statements, its just that your arguments are so stupid. Go ahead, try to state your argument that because I pay taxes I'm just as guilty as people supporting the catholic church that protects pedophiles. Go ahead. I've asked you to do this several times, you have never made an argument. Your position is just so stupid. And you are supporting protecting pedophiles. And the root of your position is still "what about" ism. Priests rape children, but what about you paying taxes?!?!?!? You are an idiot.

Go ahead, I'd like you to answer the single question above:
I pay taxes to support the expenses of my country. Do you somehow disagree with this statement?
I'm pretty sure that you won't answer the question. It will show the level of your dishonesty. Again.

Just stop already. You are either bad at reading comprehension or you are just being stubborn because you can't hack the fact that your arguments have no logical coherence and also have been answered repeatedly.

I pay taxes to support the expenses of my country. Do you somehow disagree with this statement?
I'm pretty sure that you won't answer the question. It will show the level of your dishonesty. Again.

As said so many times in every post. No. I don't disagree, because the main keyword that refutes your entire schtick is "intention" (this is prob 20x i've said this word).

The argument started about Hell and how there are crimes that do deserve this, you then brought up the pedophile priests, in which my response was it depends on the severity. You did not want to accept it, so I gave you analogies in our own legal system, of crimes that warrant either prison or death penalty. You didn't like that answer, so you then go on to how the people giving tithes are responsible for protecting priests, I then show how bad that logic was because many institutions have their corrupt leaders that are taking advantage of the people giving money under good intentions, you don't like that answer either and then proceed to repeat the questions and play around that nothing has been answered to save face.

 

[Xavier363]

You've been repeating the same thing as to how your $ is going to the bad politicians in every post, and its been answered in every reply i've made.
It's as if you don't understand the argument and even your own arguments. Either that or you are in full denial and do not want to accept how hypocritical and poor your case is.

Every question you gave was answered repeatedly. You on the other hand have refused to answer the questions given to you as a counter response.



Just stop already. You are either bad at reading comprehension or you are just being stubborn because you can't hack the fact that your arguments have no logical coherence and also have been answered repeatedly.


As said so many times in every post. No. I don't disagree, because the main keyword that refutes your entire schtick is "intention" (this is prob 20x i've said this word).

The argument started about Hell and how there are crimes that do deserve this, you then brought up the pedophile priests, in which my response was it depends on the severity. You did not want to accept it, so I gave you analogies in our own legal system, of crimes that warrant either prison or death penalty. You didn't like that answer, so you then go on to how the people giving tithes are responsible for protecting priests, I then show how bad that logic was because many institutions have their corrupt leaders that are taking advantage of the people giving money under good intentions, you don't like that answer either and then proceed to repeat the questions and play around that nothing has been answered to save face.

You are just so thick, it is really quite sad. You are equating taxes to tithes. Taxes are mandatory, tithes are voluntary. People that are aware that the catholic church protects pedophile priests are voluntarily supporting this criminal organization. If a bad actor gets paid from my taxes BEFORE they are found to be a bad actor, I as a tax payer bear no responsibility for the bad actions. The catholic church protects pedophile priests AFTER they are found out. See the difference? The two scenarios are not analogous.

You are the one making the argument that paying taxes is the same as paying tithes to the catholic church. Not me. I'm refuting your ridiculous argument. In order to refute your nonsense ask questions as clearly as I possibly can, holding your hand along the way. You almost always ignore the questions or deflect to some what about ism. Finally got you to agree that my taxes support the expenses of my country. Even that was like pulling teeth.

Lets try again:

3) Roads, bridges, etc. These are things that my taxes fund. Disagree with this statement?

4) Part of what I fund is the legal system. Disagree with this statement. It is obviously factually accurate. Please tell me how my taxes do not fund the legal system in my country. I'm eagerly waiting to hear your response to this one.

Pretty simple questions, go ahead. Spin the wheel, deflect, ignore, what about, ...

You have helped change my mind about one thing, though. Earlier someone asked if it was wrong to want to die to be with the lord. I said something like "if someone tells you their book says it is good to die to be with the lord, they should read other books". Something like that. My position has changed. Now I think that people like you who defend the catholic church, the pedophile priests, the bishops that protected them, and the popes calling the shots should all do everything possible to be with the lord as soon as humanly possible. Thanks for helping me change my mind on this topic.

 

[Cis.jd]

You are just so thick, it is really quite sad. You are equating taxes to tithes. Taxes are mandatory, tithes are voluntary. People that are aware that the catholic church protects pedophile priests are voluntarily supporting this criminal organization. If a bad actor gets paid from my taxes BEFORE they are found to be a bad actor, I as a tax payer bear no responsibility for the bad actions. The catholic church protects pedophile priests AFTER they are found out. See the difference? The two scenarios are not analogous.

No, i'm equating the results of it. In the end it still goes to the pockets of bad politicians, so they are still exploiting the system just like how bad priests are exploiting the religious views of catholics. The word "intention" is something you continuously ignore or just unable to grasp.

You keep rehashing the same counter, which shows you don't read. The whole "if they get caught" response of yours just shows you have no knowledge of the world other than your 1st world country. Politicians in 3rd world countries are able to bypass their justice system, does that make their citizens bad now?

The Catholic church doesn't protect pedophiles, it has just faced corruption which is currently being cleaned out by the Pope.

OBTW.. this is the 20th+ time I am repeating the McDonalds question, looks like you are still dodging it.

You have helped change my mind about one thing, though. Earlier someone asked if it was wrong to want to die to be with the lord. I said something like "if someone tells you their book says it is good to die to be with the lord, they should read other books". Something like that. My position has changed. Now I think that people like you who defend the catholic church, the pedophile priests, the bishops that protected them, and the popes calling the shots should all do everything possible to be with the lord as soon as humanly possible. Thanks for helping me change my mind on this topic.

I'm not defending the church, i'm just showing you how your arguments are bad because it can be used against any current industry and person such as yourself. You just don't like to accept the fact that your points are one sided and obtuse.

 

[Xavier363]

No, i'm equating the results of it. In the end it still goes to the pockets of bad politicians, so they are still exploiting the system just like how bad priests are exploiting the religious views of catholics. The word "intention" is something you continuously ignore or just unable to grasp.

You keep rehashing the same counter, which shows you don't read. The whole "if they get caught" response of yours just shows you have no knowledge of the world other than your 1st world country. Politicians in 3rd world countries are able to bypass their justice system, does that make their citizens bad now?

The Catholic church doesn't protect pedophiles, it has just faced corruption which is currently being cleaned out by the Pope.

OBTW.. this is the 20th+ time I am repeating the McDonalds question, looks like you are still dodging it.



I'm not defending the church, i'm just showing you how your arguments are bad because it can be used against any current industry and person such as yourself. You just don't like to accept the fact that your points are one sided and obtuse.

Ok, so dumbest point first. You say I've dodged the McDonalds thing 20+ times. That is a lie. From you unsurprising. Dodge - you keep using this word, I don't think it means what you think it means. For the fourth time:

Dude, I answered the McDonalds question twice now. Here it is for the third time:

Laid out my response three times. Quoting twice from this site.

To address your deflection regarding McDonalds, and this is really super simple, if I found out that the McDonalds corporation was moving the manager from restaurant to restaurant to hide them - they were spending hundreds of millions of $ to thwart the victim from compensation - that they had been doing this for decades - I'd absolutely stop patronizing the business. Duh. As soon as I realized that, they would never receive another cent from me. Would I be culpable before I knew about the situation - no. Again, duh. But, just like the catholic church example, as soon as I became aware and continued to support the organization - yes, yes I'd be culpable. Pretty straight forward stuff here.

So, you claim that I "dodged" your question about McDonalds about 20+ times. That is a lie. Not dodged even once. As a matter of fact, I believe I've responded 4 times. Again, you are a liar. Again, at least you are consistent. Moving on...

No, i'm equating the results of it. In the end it still goes to the pockets of bad politicians, so they are still exploiting the system just like how bad priests are exploiting the religious views of catholics. The word "intention" is something you continuously ignore or just unable to grasp.

No sir, I understand intention. I also understand what before and after mean. If my tax $ goes into the pocket of a bad actor BEFORE they are discovered to be a bad actor, I bear no responsibility. Agree / disagree?

If bad priests are exploiting (raping children) the system and are then protected by the system AFTER they are found out - one who supported continuing to pay the priests and protect them from discovery WOULD bear responsibility for the actions of the rapists. Agree / disagree?

Your latest what about ism:

You keep rehashing the same counter, which shows you don't read. The whole "if they get caught" response of yours just shows you have no knowledge of the world other than your 1st world country. Politicians in 3rd world countries are able to bypass their justice system, does that make their citizens bad now?

So, what about systems that are not as good as mine at weeding out bad actors? Their systems should be improved as necessary. If this is difficult, or even currently impossible, it in no way equates the people of country X with intentionally supporting the bad actors. In no way, as in this example they have no choice. Paying $ to the catholic church is voluntary. People voluntarily paying $ into an organization that they know protects pedophile priests are complicit in their crimes.

The Catholic church doesn't protect pedophiles, it has just faced corruption which is currently being cleaned out by the Pope.

The catholic church has been protecting pedophile priests for decades. They have moved them from church to church once discovered, they spend millions to prevent victims from being compensated for the rape and abuse they have experienced. You are lying again by denying this and by denying this you are supporting an organization that protects pedophile rapists. I don't have a dog in this race, but if it was necessary to bankrupt the catholic church to compensate for the rape of countless children, I'd say that would be a really good start.

Lets try again, shall we?

3) Roads, bridges, etc. These are things that my taxes fund. Disagree with this statement?

4) Part of what I fund is the legal system. Disagree with this statement. It is obviously factually accurate. Please tell me how my taxes do not fund the legal system in my country. I'm eagerly waiting to hear your response to this one.

I see that you spun the wheel and just chose "ignore".

 

[Cis.jd]

Ok, so dumbest point first. You say I've dodged the McDonalds thing 20+ times. That is a lie. From you unsurprising. Dodge - you keep using this word, I don't think it means what you think it means. For the fourth time:

So, you claim that I "dodged" your question about McDonalds about 20+ times. That is a lie. Not dodged even once. As a matter of fact, I believe I've responded 4 times. Again, you are a liar. Again, at least you are consistent. Moving on...

Sorry, didn't see that

No sir, I understand intention. I also understand what before and after mean. If my tax $ goes into the pocket of a bad actor BEFORE they are discovered to be a bad actor, I bear no responsibility. Agree / disagree?

If bad priests are exploiting (raping children) the system and are then protected by the system AFTER they are found out - one who supported continuing to pay the priests and protect them from discovery WOULD bear responsibility for the actions of the rapists. Agree / disagree?

Your latest what about ism:

That is only if they are aware that the system is taking advantage of them, but if they are not then you can't label them as responsible. The people in 3rd world countries are at the mercy of their corrupt politicians who are protected by the nations system, remember I talked about poverty, that is also a system orchestrated by corrupt officials. So if we are going to use your line of thinking with Catholics, as you've presented, then now you are going to have to start saying all the poor people from Cuba, Cambodia, the Philippines, and some African or Latin American countries are evil. You have to be honest with your logic otherwise you are just being one sided and bias.

The catholic church has been protecting pedophile priests for decades. They have moved them from church to church once discovered, they spend millions to prevent victims from being compensated for the rape and abuse they have experienced. You are lying again by denying this and by denying this you are supporting an organization that protects pedophile rapists. I don't have a dog in this race, but if it was necessary to bankrupt the catholic church to compensate for the rape of countless children, I'd say that would be a really good start.

Lets try again, shall we?

3) Roads, bridges, etc. These are things that my taxes fund. Disagree with this statement?

4) Part of what I fund is the legal system. Disagree with this statement. It is obviously factually accurate. Please tell me how my taxes do not fund the legal system in my country. I'm eagerly waiting to hear your response to this one.

I see that you spun the wheel and just chose "ignore".

But Catholics in your common neighborhood would not be able to tell that. How are they going to know if a priest in their church is a pedophile? They wouldn't know, unless he was caught. You shot down your own argument in your earlier post by stating its 10%, you know how many criminals and pedophile politicians there are in 3rd world countries, they vary from 30%-80%. You see how your line of thinking forces you to now take shots at even poor people outside of the west?

#3 and #4. With out tithes, how are the people in a neighborhood going to go practice and live their religion with their community? How can churches get their communities involved with outreach programs and homeless feeding, with out it?

You are just showing that catholics are being exploited by corrupt officials running the church. What is also funny is that you are so lost in your own arguments that you forgot the primary basis of why you brought this up, which was hell. Even if you think Catholics are indirectly responsible for supporting the corruption with in the church, the point is that it isn't a big enough sin for them to be sent to hell for it.

 

[Xavier363]

Sorry, didn't see that


That is only if they are aware that the system is taking advantage of them, but if they are not then you can't label them as responsible. The people in 3rd world countries are at the mercy of their corrupt politicians who are protected by the nations system, remember I talked about poverty, that is also a system orchestrated by corrupt officials. So if we are going to use your line of thinking with Catholics, as you've presented, then now you are going to have to start saying all the poor people from Cuba, Cambodia, the Philippines, and some African or Latin American countries are evil. You have to be honest with your logic otherwise you are just being one sided and bias.



But Catholics in your common neighborhood would not be able to tell that. How are they going to know if a priest in their church is a pedophile? They wouldn't know, unless he was caught. You shot down your own argument in your earlier post by stating its 10%, you know how many criminals and pedophile politicians there are in 3rd world countries, they vary from 30%-80%. You see how your line of thinking forces you to now take shots at even poor people outside of the west?

#3 and #4. With out tithes, how are the people in a neighborhood going to go practice and live their religion with their community? How can churches get their communities involved with outreach programs and homeless feeding, with out it?

You are just showing that catholics are being exploited by corrupt officials running the church. What is also funny is that you are so lost in your own arguments that you forgot the primary basis of why you brought this up, which was hell. Even if you think Catholics are indirectly responsible for supporting the corruption with in the church, the point is that it isn't a big enough sin for them to be sent to hell for it.

Thank you for your apology. I do actually appreciate that. If you honestly ( granting you a super benefit of the doubt here ) somehow missed my responses, I'd like to point out that you made no comment regarding the McDonalds response. I honestly would like to hear your reply to my response. I think it will help me understand where you are coming from.

Bringing it back to where we left off:

My words that you failed to answer: Agree or disagree - this is a simple yes / no or agree disagree question. You can take a position - please do so.
No sir, I understand intention. I also understand what before and after mean. If my tax $ goes into the pocket of a bad actor BEFORE they are discovered to be a bad actor, I bear no responsibility. Agree / disagree?

That is only if they are aware that the system is taking advantage of them, but if they are not then you can't label them as responsible.

Note how I reference BEFORE they are discovered. You are now using the word "aware". Please comment how AWARE, and BEFORE, and AFTER, are related to the SYSTEM taking advantage or people. People paying taxes in a system that it is mandatory.

My words:

If bad priests are exploiting (raping children) the system and are then protected by the system AFTER they are found out - one who supported continuing to pay the priests and protect them from discovery WOULD bear responsibility for the actions of the rapists. Agree / disagree?

Your words:

That is only if they are aware that the system is taking advantage of them, but if they are not then you can't label them as responsible.

Remember the intentionality thing I brought up? Yes. Yes, it really matters. You stating "That is only if they are aware..." is my exact point. Intentionality matters. When I pay taxes, I'm not intentionally supporting anyone who will break the law during the time they are employed BEFORE they are discovered to be breaking the law. I bear ZERO responsibility for crimes committed by civil servants BEFORE I'm / the law discovers their crimes. People supporting the catholic church AFTER they are aware of the decades of child rape and the cover up of these abuses ARE COMPLICIT in these crimes.

That is only if they are aware that the system is taking advantage of them, but if they are not then you can't label them as responsible. The people in 3rd world countries are at the mercy of their corrupt politicians who are protected by the nations system, remember I talked about poverty, that is also a system orchestrated by corrupt officials. So if we are going to use your line of thinking with Catholics, as you've presented, then now you are going to have to start saying all the poor people from Cuba, Cambodia, the Philippines, and some African or Latin American countries are evil. You have to be honest with your logic otherwise you are just being one sided and bias.

This is again your "what about ism". I hope to make an argument that is solid enough here that you will stop using this diversionary tactic. So, here we go. Remember how taxes are mandatory? First world, third world, it does not matter. If taxes are mandatory, the people paying the taxes have no choice but to pay their taxes. Kind of the definition of mandatory. Tithing is voluntary. So, wherever your "what about ism", Cuba, Cambodia, Philippines, Alaska, Venus, Mars, Titan, Pluto, Imaginaryland, etc... As long as taxes are mandatory on these "worlds" and tithing is voluntary - people tithing to the catholic church that are aware that they are supporting an organization that protects the priest who have raped children - are complicit in these crimes. People paying mandatory taxes are not. Again, duh.

Again, intentionality. Your words:

But Catholics in your common neighborhood would not be able to tell that. How are they going to know if a priest in their church is a pedophile? They wouldn't know, unless he was caught. You shot down your own argument in your earlier post by stating its 10%, you know how many criminals and pedophile politicians there are in 3rd world countries, they vary from 30%-80%. You see how your line of thinking forces you to now take shots at even poor people outside of the west?

Of course no one knows if a person is guilty of a crime ( remember the BEFORE / AFTER thing regarding time? ) until they are caught. Your argument is that because I pay taxes and some of those funds may go to bad actors BEFORE they are identified as bad actors that I'm just as guilty as people tithing to the catholic church AFTER they realize that their $ funds the organization that protects pedophile priests, moves them to new places, thwarts efforts for compensation, etc. Getting a bit tiring here, but once again you try the 'What about ism" of criminals in third world countries as if it was relevant. It is not.

Lets try again, shall we?

3) Roads, bridges, etc. These are things that my taxes fund. Disagree with this statement?

4) Part of what I fund is the legal system. Disagree with this statement. It is obviously factually accurate. Please tell me how my taxes do not fund the legal system in my country. I'm eagerly waiting to hear your response to this one.

I think the wheel that you are spinning is currently stuck on "ignore". Dude, these questions are super simple yes / no questions. Feel free to comment after your answer, but do me the courtesy of answering the questions please. Your dodge of "how are people, blah blah ..." is not an answer. Feel free to add whatever commentary you like - AFTER you ANSWER the QUESTIONS. I'll happily respond.

You are just showing that catholics are being exploited by corrupt officials running the church. What is also funny is that you are so lost in your own arguments that you forgot the primary basis of why you brought this up, which was hell. Even if you think Catholics are indirectly responsible for supporting the corruption with in the church, the point is that it isn't a big enough sin for them to be sent to hell for it.

Cool that you used the word "just" in your first sentence. I guess I'm "just" showing that catholics are being exploited by (your words) "corrupt officials" running the church. Perhaps you are someone with more legitimacy to run the catholic church. Perhaps the catholic sheep are being exploited by the catholic wolves. Perhaps. Once the wool has been removed from the eyes of the sheep - if they still contribute to the criminal organization that has been hiding pedophile priests, moving them around, thwarting legal efforts for victim compensation - they are part of the problem. Exposing what the catholic church has been up to for decades at least (raping children) lying to anyone who would listen (centuries), and trying Galileo (pointing out that the earth was not the center of our solar system - let alone the universe) for being correct - is something that I support. Bringing it back to hell, I find this funny. Not comforting, as I don't believe that either heaven or hell actually exist.

As far as dying to be with the lord exists as a good idea - I have thoughts. The first thought is that supposedly suicide is a bad thing according to god. I believe that this was proposed in order to control people who would believe such a thing. Now, as for priests raping children - it seems like doctrinally, god says, you better not do that. I really don't like it. But, I'll watch while you continue to rape children and once you die, I'll punish you. I'm not the ruler of the universe, but if I could stop a priest from raping children - yeah, I sure would. Your god watches and does nothing, apparently. My point is: Your catholic book indicates that suicide is bad. I'm assuming it also says that raping children is bad. I don't think that any gods exist, but for fun, imagine that one does. If a catholic priest killed himself BEFORE raping a child - I'd bet that a good god would gently grab them around the neck with their arm, rub a knuckle into their hair giving them a "nuggie" and say something like "dude, you almost screwed it up by raping the child, but you didn't - welcome to paradise".