Is it wrong to want to die?

[Xavier363]

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, or should a different sentence be given?

You are ignoring two major factors, one is "severity". Even in our own judicial laws, justice is based on severity. You don't give a guy who robbed a donut 5+ years in jail just like a guy who robbed banks, do you? Why.. they both stole, its just the severity of it differs. That is how justice works generally.




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 for the sake of an e-agenda of yours rather than reason.

The point is the catholic church isn't the only institution that has its bad apples. Even schools have them, you've read/heard news about teachers getting it on or molesting their underaged students, i assume. Should we now start using your logic and label every parent who puts their kids to school?

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 just paid him so by your reasoning you too are guilty of the support of a rapist/murderer regardless of being required to pay taxes. Nazi's during WW2 where ordered to kill Jews, so i guess since to them it was required that makes their crime less evil since these soldiers where doing so under obligation, just going by your logic here.

See, I told you this would be fun Last first, taxes are mandatory, tithing is not. Go ahead and try to logic your way into painting me (who opposes funding the child rape factory of the catholic church) as the bad guy. Anyone supporting the catholic church is knowingly supporting an organization protecting pedophile priests. People paying their taxes are funding a government whose role is to protect the most vulnerable - not to rape them. Go ahead, try again to equate the taxes I pay to a secular government, imperfect as it may be, to an organization that has protected child rapists for decades. You say that the less rapey priests will still go to heaven. If I was given the choice to go to a heaven populated with these people, I'd look for another neighborhood. I'd still not sentence them to the eternal torture that it seems you would. I'd fix them or segregate them from the rest of our society.

You've mentioned an e-agenda a few times, I'm unfamiliar with the expression. Perhaps you can share what you think this label means.

Your words: The point is the catholic church isn't the only institution that has its bad apples.

Again with the What About Ism. You are just saying: "So what if priests rape children, other people rape them too." Yes, the problem is the rape of children. Yes, that is bad. The point that you seem unable to process is that the catholic church does not think that priests raping children is a sufficient problem to take steps to prevent it. I do. And the people who fund this organization are contributing to the protection of priests who rape children.

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, or should a different sentence be given?

You failed to answer my question, again, you just asked your own question as a response.

You mentioned that you have not gone to church for several years, I'm happy to hear that. Not a competition, but I've not gone for 54 years now and counting. This is personal, so feel free to ignore this question but I'm curious: why do you identify as a catholic and do you tithe or contribute financially to this organization. Again, as this is personal, up to you to answer. I won't hold it against you if you decline.

 

[Cis.jd]

See, I told you this would be fun Last first, taxes are mandatory, tithing is not. Go ahead and try to logic your way into painting me (who opposes funding the child rape factory of the catholic church) as the bad guy. Anyone supporting the catholic church is knowingly supporting an organization protecting pedophile priests. People paying their taxes are funding a government whose role is to protect the most vulnerable - not to rape them. Go ahead, try again to equate the taxes I pay to a secular government, imperfect as it may be, to an organization that has protected child rapists for decades. You say that the less rapey priests will still go to heaven. If I was given the choice to go to a heaven populated with these people, I'd look for another neighborhood. I'd still not sentence them to the eternal torture that it seems you would. I'd fix them or segregate them from the rest of our society.

Doesn't matter, you are still putting food on a rapist table. Not everyone who supports the catholic church are aware or believe that they are supporting pedophiles. As you said, its only 10%, what about the other 90% of those priest who are doing their job right? What about them? That is kinda unfair to judge the good ones because of a smaller % of bad ones.

The majority are giving tithes on the intention (keyword) of moral beliefs not because they are intentionally supporting the corrupt. They are victims of a con, not contributors.

You've mentioned an e-agenda a few times, I'm unfamiliar with the expression. Perhaps you can share what you think this label means.

For me, you are in this site just to throw whatever you can at christianity just by reading your responses with some others here which is why your reasoning is very one sided. So its an ego you are flexing online.

Again with the What About Ism. You are just saying: "So what if priests rape children, other people rape them too." Yes, the problem is the rape of children. Yes, that is bad. The point that you seem unable to process is that the catholic church does not think that priests raping children is a sufficient problem to take steps to prevent it. I do. And the people who fund this organization are contributing to the protection of priests who rape children.

That is definetly so off from what i am saying. I am saying the justice called for crimes all vary on the severity.

The Catholic Church is facing corruption with in, we support what it originally stands for. Just like how random citizens of xyz country support their countries ideals for what it is supposed to stand for, despite corrupt elects hiding behind it.

You failed to answer my question, again, you just asked your own question as a response.

You mentioned that you have not gone to church for several years, I'm happy to hear that. Not a competition, but I've not gone for 54 years now and counting. This is personal, so feel free to ignore this question but I'm curious: why do you identify as a catholic and do you tithe or contribute financially to this organization. Again, as this is personal, up to you to answer. I won't hold it against you if you decline.

*facepalm. It seems that you are not used to debating because countering a question with another question is normal, these questions are rhetoric, they are made to give a better illustration for my answer.

I identify as catholic based on theological beliefs. I believe in the spiritual ideals that catholicism is/was supposed to be. I do walk in a church to sit and meditate but I do not like associating with christians personally. I do not think every person who leads churches (whether protestant or catholic) actually believes in God and is just making a business out of it. Like those pedo-priests for example, if they really believed in God then why are they doing that knowing that God would punish them for it?

 

[Xavier363]

Doesn't matter, you are still putting food on a rapist table. Not everyone who supports the catholic church are aware or believe that they are supporting pedophiles. As you said, its only 10%, what about the other 90% of those priest who are doing their job right? What about them? That is kinda unfair to judge the good ones because of a smaller % of bad ones.

The majority are giving tithes on the intention (keyword) of moral beliefs not because they are intentionally supporting the corrupt. They are victims of a con, not contributors.


For me, you are in this site just to throw whatever you can at christianity just by reading your responses with some others here which is why your reasoning is very one sided. So its an ego you are flexing online.


That is definetly so off from what i am saying. I am saying the justice called for crimes all vary on the severity.

The Catholic Church is facing corruption with in, we support what it originally stands for. Just like how random citizens of xyz country support their countries ideals for what it is supposed to stand for, despite corrupt elects hiding behind it.




*facepalm. It seems that you are not used to debating because countering a question with another question is normal, these questions are rhetoric, they are made to give a better illustration for my answer.

I identify as catholic based on theological beliefs. I believe in the spiritual ideals that catholicism is/was supposed to be. I do walk in a church to sit and meditate but I do not like associating with christians personally. I do not think every person who leads churches (whether protestant or catholic) actually believes in God and is just making a business out of it. Like those pedo-priests for example, if they really believed in God then why are they doing that knowing that God would punish them for it?

You really, really seem to like the "what about" thing. Your words:
As you said, its only 10%, what about the other 90% of those priest who are doing their job right?
I'm assuming that you would not go to a doctor, a contractor, a pilot, a dentist, an accountant, a lawyer, (you see where I'm going here) if you were to assume that 10% were (to be extremely charitable in my wording here) unqualified. What about the 90% of pilots that don't crash their planes into the ground? Would you buy a crate of delicious mangos knowing that 90% would not poison you? Would you submit to dental surgery knowing that you had a 10% chance of being raped while sedated? Seriously, you need to stop using the "what about" excuse and actually defend your position.

So, again, you didn't define what an e-agenda means. You just said you don't like my responses. Is it an ego-agenda? 'E' as in electronic? Go ahead, define your term - after that we can discuss.

Your words: Not everyone who supports the catholic church are aware or believe that they are supporting pedophiles.

I'll grant you that not everyone who supports the catholic church are aware that they are supporting pedophiles. Yes or no time, are the ones that are aware guilty of aiding / facilitating / protecting / shielding / the priests raping children? Yes or no, dude - this is a very clear question.

Go ahead and facepalm all you like. Deflecting a direct question with one of your own that diverts the question is not illustrating your answer - it is just a technique used to avoid a question. I like to ask direct yes / no questions to drill down and see exactly where someone is coming from. If instead of a yes / no answer I receive a question, I know that the person either cannot or would like not to answer.

So, yes / no: 10% chance the next time and each and every subsequent time you use a plane / taxi / bus / car / dog sled / hot air balloon you will have a bad thing happen to you - on par with the children being raped, etc. - are you going to roll the dice? No intelligent person would. Can you answer this yes / no question? Or would you like to deflect again and talk about the 90% of the blah, blah, blah... Or he 90% of the time that the injury is blah, blah, blah. Or the blah, blah, blah.

See why I continue to attempt to get you to just answer, honestly, with a yes / no answer with an explanation? Seriously, you can do better.

 

[Xavier363]

Doesn't matter, you are still putting food on a rapist table. Not everyone who supports the catholic church are aware or believe that they are supporting pedophiles. As you said, its only 10%, what about the other 90% of those priest who are doing their job right? What about them? That is kinda unfair to judge the good ones because of a smaller % of bad ones.

The majority are giving tithes on the intention (keyword) of moral beliefs not because they are intentionally supporting the corrupt. They are victims of a con, not contributors.


For me, you are in this site just to throw whatever you can at christianity just by reading your responses with some others here which is why your reasoning is very one sided. So its an ego you are flexing online.


That is definetly so off from what i am saying. I am saying the justice called for crimes all vary on the severity.

The Catholic Church is facing corruption with in, we support what it originally stands for. Just like how random citizens of xyz country support their countries ideals for what it is supposed to stand for, despite corrupt elects hiding behind it.




*facepalm. It seems that you are not used to debating because countering a question with another question is normal, these questions are rhetoric, they are made to give a better illustration for my answer.

I identify as catholic based on theological beliefs. I believe in the spiritual ideals that catholicism is/was supposed to be. I do walk in a church to sit and meditate but I do not like associating with christians personally. I do not think every person who leads churches (whether protestant or catholic) actually believes in God and is just making a business out of it. Like those pedo-priests for example, if they really believed in God then why are they doing that knowing that God would punish them for it?

Sorry, I meant to hit this earlier but just noticed that you failed to address it:

Go ahead and try to logic your way into painting me (who opposes funding the child rape factory of the catholic church) as the bad guy. Anyone supporting the catholic church is knowingly supporting an organization protecting pedophile priests. People paying their taxes are funding a government whose role is to protect the most vulnerable - not to rape them. Go ahead, try again to equate the taxes I pay to a secular government, imperfect as it may be, to an organization that has protected child rapists for decades.

Please present a logical argument, not just an assertion, that equates paying taxes to voluntarily supporting a criminal organization. This should be good, I'll make popcorn.

 

[Cis.jd]

Sorry, I meant to hit this earlier but just noticed that you failed to address it:


Please present a logical argument, not just an assertion, that equates paying taxes to voluntarily supporting a criminal organization. This should be good, I'll make popcorn.

I didn't give an assertion. I gave you the name of the cop who was charged with rape and murder, and every public servant gets their money off you. Hence your logic fits here. Being voluntary or not doesn't matter as I explained the reason why with the Nazi analogy.

 

[Cis.jd]

You really, really seem to like the "what about" thing. Your words:
I'm assuming that you would not go to a doctor, a contractor, a pilot, a dentist, an accountant, a lawyer, (you see where I'm going here) if you were to assume that 10% were (to be extremely charitable in my wording here) unqualified. What about the 90% of pilots that don't crash their planes into the ground? Would you buy a crate of delicious mangos knowing that 90% would not poison you? Would you submit to dental surgery knowing that you had a 10% chance of being raped while sedated? Seriously, you need to stop using the "what about" excuse and actually defend your position.

This counter makes no sense at all.

So, again, you didn't define what an e-agenda means. You just said you don't like my responses. Is it an ego-agenda? 'E' as in electronic? Go ahead, define your term - after that we can discuss.

Ok, you want a defintion. E-agenda meaning you are here for the purpose of just throwing stuff at christianity, not for reason. Its all to soothe your ego against it. That is what e-agenda means.

Your words: Not everyone who supports the catholic church are aware or believe that they are supporting pedophiles.

I'll grant you that not everyone who supports the catholic church are aware that they are supporting pedophiles. Yes or no time, are the ones that are aware guilty of aiding / facilitating / protecting / shielding / the priests raping children? Yes or no, dude - this is a very clear question.

But since not everyone is intentionally supporting that 10% and focusing on the 90% then considering them responsible is kinda silly and unfair. I mean, with all the examples i gave you about other forms of institutions having their bad apples you seem to ignore that and dance around it just so you can keep this atheistic schtick. The ones who are aware are definitely guilty.

Deflecting a direct question with one of your own that diverts the question is not illustrating your answer - it is just a technique used to avoid a question. I like to ask direct yes / no questions to drill down and see exactly where someone is coming from. If instead of a yes / no answer I receive a question, I know that the person either cannot or would like not to answer.

Answering a question by giving another question isn't diversion its called being rhetorical, the best way to have the opponent think is to use their reasoning against them so that they can see the logical fallacy in their argument, hence using questions is part of debating. You ever heard of Socrates, that is how he explained and argued with others. Sorry, i think you just don't like seeing your logic being sent back against you because you can see the many holes it has.
LOL at you thinking debating is just "yes or no's". Watch some debates, it doesn't have to be religion related and tell me how many are just plain yes' or nos'?

So, yes / no: 10% chance the next time and each and every subsequent time you use a plane / taxi / bus / car / dog sled / hot air balloon you will have a bad thing happen to you - on par with the children being raped, etc. - are you going to roll the dice? No intelligent person would. Can you answer this yes / no question? Or would you like to deflect again and talk about the 90% of the blah, blah, blah... Or he 90% of the time that the injury is blah, blah, blah. Or the blah, blah, blah.

See why I continue to attempt to get you to just answer, honestly, with a yes / no answer with an explanation? Seriously, you can do better.

I can't give a yes/no to this specific quote because this makes no sense

 

[Xavier363]

I didn't give an assertion. I gave you the name of the cop who was charged with rape and murder, and every public servant gets their money off you. Hence your logic fits here. Being voluntary or not doesn't matter as I explained the reason why with the Nazi analogy.

I asked this:
Please present a logical argument, not just an assertion, that equates paying taxes to voluntarily supporting a criminal organization. This should be good, I'll make popcorn.

You are asserting that paying mandatory taxes in a secular democracy, is equivalent to optionally supporting an organization that protects pedophile priests. That is your assertion. Please defend it.

 

[Xavier363]

This counter makes no sense at all.


Ok, you want a defintion. E-agenda meaning you are here for the purpose of just throwing stuff at christianity, not for reason. Its all to soothe your ego against it. That is what e-agenda means.


But since not everyone is intentionally supporting that 10% and focusing on the 90% then considering them responsible is kinda silly and unfair. I mean, with all the examples i gave you about other forms of institutions having their bad apples you seem to ignore that and dance around it just so you can keep this atheistic schtick. The ones who are aware are definitely guilty.


Answering a question by giving another question isn't diversion its called being rhetorical, the best way to have the opponent think is to use their reasoning against them so that they can see the logical fallacy in their argument, hence using questions is part of debating. You ever heard of Socrates, that is how he explained and argued with others. Sorry, i think you just don't like seeing your logic being sent back against you because you can see the many holes it has.
LOL at you thinking debating is just "yes or no's". Watch some debates, it doesn't have to be religion related and tell me how many are just plain yes' or nos'?



I can't give a yes/no to this specific quote because this makes no sense

This popcorn is delicious. I searched e-agenda and had a rare search result of zero - I guess you just made it up. Whatever. I'm here because I enjoy discussions and feel I have something to contribute. You don't seem to appreciate my contributions, I'm fine with that.

Yes or no time, are the ones that are aware guilty of aiding / facilitating / protecting / shielding / the priests raping children? Yes or no, dude - this is a very clear question.

Finally. Thank you. You eventually answered my question. You first fell back on your "what about other other people doing bad things?" but you got there eventually. So the people who are aware that the catholic church, as an organization, is protecting pedophile priests are guilty of supporting this organization. I agree with your position.

If I ask a straight forward, yes / no question and you deflect with a question that changes the direction of the conversation that is an admission that you cannot or are unwilling to answer the question. I agree that this tactic is used in debates. It is used as a red herring to avoid a difficult question. Instead of deflecting, perhaps you could try to point out the fallacy in my argument?

Since you claimed that my statement made no sense, I'll restate it here:

So, a yes / no question. If there was a 10% chance that the priest at the church you brought your children to would rape them over the next year, would you attend this church?

Another yes / no question. If there was a 10% chance that the doctors at a given hospital were grossly unqualified, would you elect to have major surgery at that hospital.

I can keep phrasing questions like this. Very clear questions. If you can't make sense of these questions you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Cis.jd]

Finally. Thank you. You eventually answered my question. You first fell back on your "what about other other people doing bad things?" but you got there eventually. So the people who are aware that the catholic church, as an organization, is protecting pedophile priests are guilty of supporting this organization. I agree with your position.

There was no fall back, i've repeated my answers in every post.

If I ask a straight forward, yes / no question and you deflect with a question that changes the direction of the conversation that is an admission that you cannot or are unwilling to answer the question. I agree that this tactic is used in debates. It is used as a red herring to avoid a difficult question. Instead of deflecting, perhaps you could try to point out the fallacy in my argument?

There was no deflecting, you were just being shown the logical fallacy in your argument, it is not a tactic to avoid but to expose the lack of thought of the question being given. Search the definition of rhetorics and welcome to the internet.

So, a yes / no question. If there was a 10% chance that the priest at the church you brought your children to would rape them over the next year, would you attend this church?

It's 10% chance now, in your earlier post you were talking about it as a population? And no, why i bring them there knowing the type of person who is in that church? LOL

Another yes / no question. If there was a 10% chance that the doctors at a given hospital were grossly unqualified, would you elect to have major surgery at that hospital.

No. What is the point of this question?

 

[Cis.jd]

I asked this:
Please present a logical argument, not just an assertion, that equates paying taxes to voluntarily supporting a criminal organization. This should be good, I'll make popcorn.

You are asserting that paying mandatory taxes in a secular democracy, is equivalent to optionally supporting an organization that protects pedophile priests. That is your assertion. Please defend it.

Because of the fact that you are still putting food on the tables of the corrupt politicians. It doesn't matter if you are obliged to or not, because you are still supporting them. To some religious people, they believe tithing is a moral responsibility so in that perspective that they are in some ways still obligated just based on what they believe in.

Also, it doesn't have to be just taxes, this situation can fit anywhere. Lets go reference something in where you do have a choice. Mcdonalds had someone named Bethel Park, a 14 year old girl, who was raped by a manager over there, so i guess by your reasoning people such as yourself who ate at a Mcdonalds before are guilty of supporting child rape.

 

[Xavier363]

There was no fall back, i've repeated my answers in every post.


There was no deflecting, you were just being shown the logical fallacy in your argument, it is not a tactic to avoid but to expose the lack of thought of the question being given. Search the definition of rhetorics and welcome to the internet.



It's 10% chance now, in your earlier post you were talking about it as a population? And no, why i bring them there knowing the type of person who is in that church? LOL


No. What is the point of this question?

No fall back, rich that. Here it is. I wrote:

Your words: Not everyone who supports the catholic church are aware or believe that they are supporting pedophiles.

I'll grant you that not everyone who supports the catholic church are aware that they are supporting pedophiles. Yes or no time, are the ones that are aware guilty of aiding / facilitating / protecting / shielding / the priests raping children? Yes or no, dude - this is a very clear question.

You finally agreed that people supporting the catholic church are supporting an organization that protects pedophile priests. Awesome. Now here is your fall back to What About Ism:

But since not everyone is intentionally supporting that 10% and focusing on the 90% then considering them responsible is kinda silly and unfair. I mean, with all the examples i gave you about other forms of institutions having their bad apples you seem to ignore that and dance around it just so you can keep this atheistic schtick. The ones who are aware are definitely guilty.

See how you said "But since...10%" and "other forms of institutions having bad apples" - that is your What About Ism. You really need to address this and stop using it in arguments. You are saying that because other people are bad, priests raping children should not be blamed for what they have done. Every time you deflect and try to refocus the conversation away from priests that have raped children you are protecting the priests and using a really obviously bad argument in doing so.

First, congratulations - you answered a yes / no question definitively. And then you ruined it by asking what the point was. This is intentional on your part and I'll just leave it to any obvservers to judge your reply:

Another yes / no question. If there was a 10% chance that the doctors at a given hospital were grossly unqualified, would you elect to have major surgery at that hospital.

Somehow you were unable to see the point of this question.

I asked:

So, a yes / no question. If there was a 10% chance that the priest at the church you brought your children to would rape them over the next year, would you attend this church?

Honestly, I don't understand the syntax of your response. Perhaps you could rewrite it for clarity.

It's 10% chance now, in your earlier post you were talking about it as a population? And no, why i bring them there knowing the type of person who is in that church? LOL

Since I asked for a clarification here, I'd like to cut you some slack and ask if English is your first language? It is the only language I understand and I'll try to take it into account if it is not your primary language.

 

[Xavier363]

Because of the fact that you are still putting food on the tables of the corrupt politicians. It doesn't matter if you are obliged to or not, because you are still supporting them. To some religious people, they believe tithing is a moral responsibility so in that perspective that they are in some ways still obligated just based on what they believe in.

Also, it doesn't have to be just taxes, this situation can fit anywhere. Lets go reference something in where you do have a choice. Mcdonalds had someone named Bethel Park, a 14 year old girl, who was raped by a manager over there, so i guess by your reasoning people such as yourself who ate at a Mcdonalds before are guilty of supporting child rape.

Wow, you really are not good at this. 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?

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?

So, 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?

So, 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?

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?

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]

Wow, you really are not good at this. 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?

You do though, your taxes are going straight to their wallets regardless of your excuses. You could always move to a different country, but instead you choose to stay and support the vitality of their careers (and actions), all thanks to your financial contributions.

Not all politicians get caught btw, this shows you have no knowledge of the world other than your 1st world country. Look at the 3rd world countries that have a high population of poverty, do you know the major reason for poverty in various countries such as in Asia, Africa, and Latin America is because of their corrupt politicians. I've seen mothers as young as 13 years old having their babies laydown on an overpass when I went to asia, and the milk they feed them is random water mixed with sugar. That is the only meal for that kid.. all that is because of their government which also gets money from the tax money from their citizens. What you fail to understand is that your reasoning against people who give tithes applies to mostly everybody, and just by your reasoning alone you have no choice other than to call them guilty because they are still feeding those who are corrupt. If you don't then you are trying to pull a bias-one sided debate.

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?

Just because there is an obligation doesn't mean its less wrong. Remember the example I gave with the Nazi Germany, go read it to save me a tl'dr post.
You are ignoring the most important factor which is called "intention". No Catholic gives tithes with any intention to support anything else other than the ideals of the church. Their money landing into the pockets of corrupt is not their intention, they are just being conned. Their beliefs are being taken advantaged of.

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?

It doesn't matter, if they believe they are morally obligated then they are giving money because of that. It doesn't matter if you don't believe so, they do.


Again, i'm not defending the Church. There is no doubt the corruption with every Church is real because because religion is a business.. but its just your logic that is the issue, people who are giving money are feeding the corrupt (unintentionally) but they are not evil enough to go to hell for that, they are just that naive.

 

[Cis.jd]

Wow, you really are not good at this. 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?

Just to requote to add something. What you gave is the same thinking a normal catholic does when giving tithes.

I'll render your post:
"I don't put food on the table of corrupt priests, what I do is pay tithes to support the expenses of my local church and also to give back because of the blessings i've received. fixing the glass, making sure the church can afford certain necessities etc. Part of what I tithe is also going to the janitors who work there, or to help raise money so the church can hold their feed the homeless night. Part of these tithes I pay go towards in sustaining the churches need, and assuring that it can also give back to the communities through out reach programs."

You should actually feel bad that religious people are being taken advantage of, all these good intentions that they are commanded to do by God are being exploited because of a few fakers who saw the church to be a good hiding shield for their true motives.

 

[Xavier363]

You do though, your taxes are going straight to their wallets regardless of your excuses. You could always move to a different country, but instead you choose to stay and support the vitality of their careers (and actions), all thanks to your financial contributions.

Not all politicians get caught btw, this shows you have no knowledge of the world other than your 1st world country. Look at the 3rd world countries that have a high population of poverty, do you know the major reason for poverty in various countries such as in Asia, Africa, and Latin America is because of their corrupt politicians. I've seen mothers as young as 13 years old having their babies laydown on an overpass when I went to asia, and the milk they feed them is random water mixed with sugar. That is the only meal for that kid.. all that is because of their government which also gets money from the tax money from their citizens. What you fail to understand is that your reasoning against people who give tithes applies to mostly everybody, and just by your reasoning alone you have no choice other than to call them guilty because they are still feeding those who are corrupt. If you don't then you are trying to pull a bias-one sided debate.




Just because there is an obligation doesn't mean its less wrong. Remember the example I gave with the Nazi Germany, go read it to save me a tl'dr post.
You are ignoring the most important factor which is called "intention". No Catholic gives tithes with any intention to support anything else other than the ideals of the church. Their money landing into the pockets of corrupt is not their intention, they are just being conned. Their beliefs are being taken advantaged of.


It doesn't matter, if they believe they are morally obligated then they are giving money because of that. It doesn't matter if you don't believe so, they do.


Again, i'm not defending the Church. There is no doubt the corruption with every Church is real because because religion is a business.. but its just your logic that is the issue, people who are giving money are feeding the corrupt (unintentionally) but they are not evil enough to go to hell for that, they are just that naive.

See how I was laying out my argument and allowing you to agree / disagree? You see how this gives you the opportunity to halt my argument when there is something that is incorrect. See how you didn't do this. See how you did not take the opportunity to poke holes in my premises or point out any fallacies? See how you again, just did your What About Ism stuff?

Sigh, I'm not making excuses, I'm pointing out how taxes work in a democracy. Sigh, so I should leave a secular democracy if while I'm paying mandatory taxes someone in the public sector does a bad thing? What about third world... What about Asia... What about Africa... What about nazis... What about... What about... What about... Dude, just address the argument as it stands without the broken record of What about.

It doesn't matter, if they believe they are morally obligated then they are giving money because of that. It doesn't matter if you don't believe so, they do.

We have already covered the issue regarding people that are aware that the catholic church is protecting pedophile priests - we agreed on this point. Now you are ignoring this concession. Once they are aware of what the church is doing, I don't care if they believe that they are morally obligated or not. You said that if I pay taxes and there is a bad actor that is funded by taxes that it is the same as people who have the option to fund the catholic church. Fail. That is not correct.

So, I laid out my points and gave you the opportunity to refute them. You did not. Want to take another try at it? You have not defended your position that paying taxes is the same as funding an organization that protects pedophile priests. I can see why you don't want to defend the position - it is nonsense. Unfortunately, once a person takes a position it can be extremely difficult to walk back from that position - even if it is super duper wrong. If you like, I can suggest a response:

Sorry, I got carried away and threw out a defense without first thinking it through. My bad. Defending the catholic church was a knee jerk reaction and I absolutely no longer financially support the organization until such time as they clean house publicly and transparently.

Short paragraph, problem resolved.

 

[Xavier363]

Just to requote to add something. What you gave is the same thinking a normal catholic does when giving tithes.

I'll render your post:
"I don't put food on the table of corrupt priests, what I do is pay tithes to support the expenses of my local church and also to give back because of the blessings i've received. fixing the glass, making sure the church can afford certain necessities etc. Part of what I tithe is also going to the janitors who work there, or to help raise money so the church can hold their feed the homeless night. Part of these tithes I pay go towards in sustaining the churches need, and assuring that it can also give back to the communities through out reach programs."

You should actually feel bad that religious people are being taken advantage of, all these good intentions that they are commanded to do by God are being exploited because of a few fakers who saw the church to be a good hiding shield for their true motives.

I do feel bad that religious people are being taken advantage of - its a big part of why I'm here. Once religion stops victimizing people, I guess I'll have more free time to devote to other problems in the world.

 

[Cis.jd]

Sigh, I'm not making excuses, I'm pointing out how taxes work in a democracy. Sigh, so I should leave a secular democracy if while I'm paying mandatory taxes someone in the public sector does a bad thing? What about third world... What about Asia... What about Africa... What about nazis... What about... What about... What about... Dude, just address the argument as it stands without the broken record of What about.

You are missing the point though. Your money is still going to these corrupt officials, no matter what the excuses are. In a sense you still are doing so by choice because these officials have been elected, why didn't you elect officials who weren't bad, it's because you and the rest of the community didn't know or they believed these government officials where something they were not.

The referencing of 3rd world countries is important for you to consider.. because one of the tactics that politicians in 3rd world countries do is make sure the poverty grows, in other words assure the lower class masses lead the demographic and to keep them uneducated so that these politicians can easily fool them to get votes. Most 3rd world countries have politicians who were former movie stars, and the reason why they win over those who are qualified is because that is all the poor know. What is on tv, so since the poverty demographic exceeds the those who are educated, the votes for the wrong leaders are higher. The poverty chooses them, but that doesn't mean they are evil does it? They are just being swindled.

We have already covered the issue regarding people that are aware that the catholic church is protecting pedophile priests - we agreed on this point. Now you are ignoring this concession. Once they are aware of what the church is doing, I don't care if they believe that they are morally obligated or not. You said that if I pay taxes and there is a bad actor that is funded by taxes that it is the same as people who have the option to fund the catholic church. Fail. That is not correct.

I'm not. As i said, being fully aware is different. Intention is important.

But as you said, its 10% of priests in the church. We can't just ignore and make the 90% suffer so what about the churches who actually use the tithes to have dinner nights for homeless people, or to build programs to get kids off streets; should we just ignore that because of the 10% priests who have been tainting the church?

The point is, it's all about intention and at the same time it we can't just demonize someone for being conned.

I saw this christian show a while back where the pastor made this spill that a person had to prove their faith by giving $1000. If someone did give that money, is he evil or is he/she just a sucker?

 

[Xavier363]

You are missing the point though. Your money is still going to these corrupt officials, no matter what the excuses are. In a sense you still are doing so by choice because these officials have been elected, why didn't you elect officials who weren't bad, it's because you and the rest of the community didn't know or they believed these government officials where something they were not.

The referencing of 3rd world countries is important for you to consider.. because one of the tactics that politicians in 3rd world countries do is make sure the poverty grows, in other words assure the lower class masses lead the demographic and to keep them uneducated so that these politicians can easily fool them to get votes. Most 3rd world countries have politicians who were former movie stars, and the reason why they win over those who are qualified is because that is all the poor know. What is on tv, so since the poverty demographic exceeds the those who are educated, the votes for the wrong leaders are higher. The poverty chooses them, but that doesn't mean they are evil does it? They are just being swindled.



I'm not. As i said, being fully aware is different. Intention is important.

But as you said, its 10% of priests in the church. We can't just ignore and make the 90% suffer so what about the churches who actually use the tithes to have dinner nights for homeless people, or to build programs to get kids off streets; should we just ignore that because of the 10% priests who have been tainting the church?

The point is, it's all about intention and at the same time it we can't just demonize someone for being conned.

I saw this christian show a while back where the pastor made this spill that a person had to prove their faith by giving $1000. If someone did give that money, is he evil or is he/she just a sucker?

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.

 

[Xavier363]

You are missing the point though. Your money is still going to these corrupt officials, no matter what the excuses are. In a sense you still are doing so by choice because these officials have been elected, why didn't you elect officials who weren't bad, it's because you and the rest of the community didn't know or they believed these government officials where something they were not.

The referencing of 3rd world countries is important for you to consider.. because one of the tactics that politicians in 3rd world countries do is make sure the poverty grows, in other words assure the lower class masses lead the demographic and to keep them uneducated so that these politicians can easily fool them to get votes. Most 3rd world countries have politicians who were former movie stars, and the reason why they win over those who are qualified is because that is all the poor know. What is on tv, so since the poverty demographic exceeds the those who are educated, the votes for the wrong leaders are higher. The poverty chooses them, but that doesn't mean they are evil does it? They are just being swindled.



I'm not. As i said, being fully aware is different. Intention is important.

But as you said, its 10% of priests in the church. We can't just ignore and make the 90% suffer so what about the churches who actually use the tithes to have dinner nights for homeless people, or to build programs to get kids off streets; should we just ignore that because of the 10% priests who have been tainting the church?

The point is, it's all about intention and at the same time it we can't just demonize someone for being conned.

I saw this christian show a while back where the pastor made this spill that a person had to prove their faith by giving $1000. If someone did give that money, is he evil or is he/she just a sucker?

Sorry, almost missed this nugget:

Your money is still going to these corrupt officials, no matter what the excuses are. In a sense you still are doing so by choice because these officials have been elected, why didn't you elect officials who weren't bad, it's because you and the rest of the community didn't know or they believed these government officials where something they were not.

I love the "why didn't you elect officials who weren't bad" part. Chef's kiss here. I'm assuming that the believers of the catholic church think that they have a direct line from the creator of the universe through the pope - or some such thing. The people that think they have god on their side still put pedophile priests on the pulpit. Me, I'm just a guy paying my taxes without some divine insight. Why don't I only elect people who are not bad? I don't have a crystal ball. Why does the catholic church put pedophiles in charge of children and then protect them when they rape the kids? Ask the pope, not me.

 

[Cis.jd]

Sorry, almost missed this nugget:



I love the "why didn't you elect officials who weren't bad" part. Chef's kiss here. I'm assuming that the believers of the catholic church think that they have a direct line from the creator of the universe through the pope - or some such thing. The people that think they have god on their side still put pedophile priests on the pulpit. Me, I'm just a guy paying my taxes without some divine insight. Why don't I only elect people who are not bad? I don't have a crystal ball. Why does the catholic church put pedophiles in charge of children and then protect them when they rape the kids? Ask the pope, not me.

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.