Are Mormons Christians?

[gerryh]

Where are you getting your statistics?

It has been discussed to death on this forum. The stats are out there for you to find if you so desire. I am sure though that you would be one of those that is too damn lazy to do your research and/or would not want to have your twisted beliefs concerning the instances of pedophilia in the priesthood shown to be so much bullshyte.

 

[Vaessen]

Where exactly is the "injustice"? Roman Catholic Priests enter into the Priesthood knowing full well what is expected of them. That being the inability for them to marry, since they are married to the Church, and abstinence. They have enetered in to the Priesthood with full knowledge and acceptance.

So they don't hear anything from anyone that could be construed as misleading?

Not only that but it is a basic human function to have a partner and procreate etc. I can make the argument that not permitting it is actually inhumane and cruel whether it was consented or not. You can consent to all sorts of terrible things, it doesn't make it right for you ot be subjected to them.

 

[VanIsle]

I guess it comes down to wording and intent. You stated that you want them to be allowed to marry, which made me wonder why the investment of desire into something you don't belong to. But if you're not willing to discuss, don't worry about it, feel free to ignore the conversation and walk away.

To state that I said that "I want them to be married" puts a whole different slant on things. What I actually said was I think the Catholic Church should allow priests to wed. No where at no time did I say I wanted them to be married. Why would I say that? It doesn't make any sense. It most certainly does come down to wording but if you choose to comment on someone's wording, then comment on the wording and not what you think it said. In this particular case, it does not come down to intent. That would mean that I meant to say that I want priests to marry and I never intended to say it. I did not say that. The words think and want do not even come close to meaning the same thing. I might even have said the word believe as opposed to think but that still doesn't get close to want. Saying I want or I believe someone (anyone) should have the right to wed does not come near saying I want someone to wed where it takes on a whole new meaning.
There is nothing to discuss is there? I think my opinion regarding priests being allowed to marry and your opinion on the subject are pretty clear to everyone. What else could there be to say?

 

[Vaessen]

Difficult questions scare you - Turn on a night light

it was not a difficult question, it was a stupid question. I never said it was an injustice to me, simply that it can be seen as an injustice in general. I never even stated that I think they should be allowed ot marry just that people should be allowed to state that they should be allowed to marry whether they are Catholics or not.

 

[karrie]

So they don't hear anything from anyone that could be construed as misleading?

Not only that but it is a basic human function to have a partner and procreate etc. I can make the argument that not permitting it is actually inhumane and cruel whether it was consented or not. You can consent to all sorts of terrible things, it doesn't make it right for you ot be subjected to them.

Humanity has had abstinent members for our whole of recorded history. monks, healers, non-sexuals, etc. If someone chooses to be abstinent, the only way to solve that injustice would be rape which is, ironically, an injustice. Or, attempting to strip them of a belief, again, an injustice.

 

[Vaessen]

To state that I said that "I want them to be married" puts a whole different slant on things. What I actually said was I think the Catholic Church should allow priests to wed. No where at no time did I say I wanted them to be married. Why would I say that? It doesn't make any sense. It most certainly does come down to wording but if you choose to comment on someone's wording, then comment on the wording and not what you think it said. In this particular case, it does not come down to intent. That would mean that I meant to say that I want priests to marry and I never intended to say it. I did not say that. The words think and want do not even come close to meaning the same thing. I might even have said the word believe as opposed to think but that still doesn't get close to want. Saying I want or I believe someone (anyone) should have the right to wed does not come near saying I want someone to wed where it takes on a whole new meaning.
There is nothing to discuss is there? I think my opinion regarding priests being allowed to marry and your opinion on the subject are pretty clear to everyone. What else could there be to say?

That's what she does. she just put words in my mouth in a post as well.

 

[karrie]

To state that I said that "I want them to be married" puts a whole different slant on things. What I actually said was I think the Catholic Church should allow priests to wed. No where at no time did I say I wanted them to be married. Why would I say that? It doesn't make any sense. It most certainly does come down to wording but if you choose to comment on someone's wording, then comment on the wording and not what you think it said. In this particular case, it does not come down to intent. That would mean that I meant to say that I want priests to marry and I never intended to say it. I did not say that. The words think and want do not even come close to meaning the same thing. I might even have said the word believe as opposed to think but that still doesn't get close to want. Saying I want or I believe someone (anyone) should have the right to wed does not come near saying I want someone to wed where it takes on a whole new meaning.
There is nothing to discuss is there? I think my opinion regarding priests being allowed to marry and your opinion on the subject are pretty clear to everyone. What else could there be to say?

"I would like to see..."

 

[gerryh]

"I would like to see..."

How's that brick wall feel?

 

[Vaessen]

Humanity has had abstinent members for our whole of recorded history. monks, healers, non-sexuals, etc. If someone chooses to be abstinent, the only way to solve that injustice would be rape which is, ironically, an injustice. Or, attempting to strip them of a belief, again, an injustice.

you're missing the point. I have a club. The fight club. We beat the hell out of each other every Sunday. all my friends do it. Lots of people think it's cool. the odd guy may join just because they think they want to be part of this group, or ANY group. So they get the crap beat out of them. If I strip them of their right to get the crap beat out of them which they only want because they are misinformed about my group being something makes them cool, then I guess I'm doing them an injustice?

The only way to solve the injusticwe you speak of is not rape either. it's changing the "rule". afterall, it is a rule anyways, it's not often followed by these people anyways and if they weren't subjected to the consequences of this rule and still remained abstinent then that's good on them but I think we all know that the population of absitinents would not remain so as a whole if the rule was changed, meaning your only way to solve comment is absolute crap.

 

[DaSleeper]

This thread should enlighten those who think pedophilia is restricted to priests...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/102831-records-boy-scouts-failed-report.html

 

[Vaessen]

"I would like to see..."

no, because if he said he would like to see, then liking something would be desiring it and you would have made the erroneous assumption that he was putting desire into it, which you did anyways with what he said.

 

[karrie]

you're missing the point. I have a club. The fight club. We beat the hell out of each other every Sunday. all my friends do it. Lots of people think it's cool. the odd guy may join just because they think they want to be part of this group, or ANY group. So they get the crap beat out of them. If I strip them of their right to get the crap beat out of them which they only want because they are misinformed about my group being something makes them cool, then I guess I'm doing them an injustice?

The only way to solve the injusticwe you speak of is not rape either. it's changing the "rule". afterall, it is a rule anyways, it's not often followed by these people anyways and if they weren't subjected to the consequences of this rule and still remained abstinent then that's good on them but I think we all know that the population of absitinents would not remain so as a whole if the rule was changed, meaning your only way to solve comment is absolute crap.

You truly believe that no one ever chooses it out of personal conviction? That says a lot. That says that you truly believe that you know better than everyone else, and no one makes a choice different from yours unless they are wrong and deep down, needing to be 'set free' from their belief. Which makes you a bit pointless to talk to about spiritual matters because, well, I really don't think life's that simple.

 

[Vaessen]

This thread should enlighten those who think pedophilia is restricted to priests...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/102831-records-boy-scouts-failed-report.html

nobody said it was restricted to priests. I just thik the idea that the percentage of priests and the percentage of married men that abuse children sexually is the same, seems to be a possible falsehood.

 

[VanIsle]

Anyone who desires to be a better person never sins? I doubt that very much.

Also, married men still abuse children in the same population percentages as priests do, so I don't get how pedophilia factors into your desire to see them marry. So they have children of their own to molest? It doesn't make much sense to me.

I can see that it doesn't make much sense to you. I won't ask you to provide proof that married men molest their own children as often as priests do. I can look it up myself and come up with the same answer. What I actually said was - I believe it would reduce the number of pedophiles who would join the church.
I don't believe for a moment that anyone who desires to be a better person, joins the church and then abuses that privilege by being a pedophile. I believe a pedophile sees the church as an avenue to children. That would apply to all churches. Not to all clergy. Everyone sins.

 

[karrie]

I can see that it doesn't make much sense to you. I won't ask you to provide proof that married men molest their own children as often as priests do. I can look it up myself and come up with the same answer. What I actually said was - I believe it would reduce the number of pedophiles who would join the church.
I don't believe for a moment that anyone who desires to be a better person, joins the church and then abuses that privilege by being a pedophile. I believe a pedophile sees the church as an avenue to children. That would apply to all churches. Not to all clergy. Everyone sins.

Pedophiles seek positions of power, plain and simple. No matter what you do, the head of a church be it a deacon, a minister, or a priest, is in a position of power, and pedophiles will be drawn to it just like the police force, cub guide, camp counselor, teacher, etc. And yes... even married men molest kids.

 

[petros]

And yes... even married men molest kids.

Married women too.

 

[gerryh]

I can see that it doesn't make much sense to you. I won't ask you to provide proof that married men molest their own children as often as priests do. I can look it up myself and come up with the same answer. What I actually said was - I believe it would reduce the number of pedophiles who would join the church.
I don't believe for a moment that anyone who desires to be a better person, joins the church and then abuses that privilege by being a pedophile. I believe a pedophile sees the church as an avenue to children. That would apply to all churches. Not to all clergy. Everyone sins.

Was Clifford Olsen a pedophile?

 

[karrie]

nobody said it was restricted to priests. I just thik the idea that the percentage of priests and the percentage of married men that abuse children sexually is the same, seems to be a possible falsehood.

Opinion formed prior to researching it. How surprising.

Rates of pedophilia are stable throughout the population. Marrying does not cure pedophilia. Being a single male does not cause pedophilia.

 

[Vaessen]

You truly believe that no one ever chooses it out of personal conviction? That says a lot. That says that you truly believe that you know better than everyone else, and no one makes a choice different from yours unless they are wrong and deep down, needing to be 'set free' from their belief. Which makes you a bit pointless to talk to about spiritual matters because, well, I really don't think life's that simple.

There you go misleading things and putting words in people's mouths again. That does not mean this. You can't simply take a statement and apply an entire new set of beliefs to it based on something you pull out of your bum.

I'm saying clearly that I have never said that these people should be allowe dto marry or not just that I believe that the idea that somebody has the right to say that. I don't care either way. I'm saying that if somebody else has that opinion that they shouldn't have to be Catholics to share that opinion.

there is a rule out there that in order to dedicate your life to the church that you need to be abstinent. If you think that's fine that's on you. I don't care either way, as I've stated. If somebody else thinks it's an injustice, then let them and you're opinion about whether they should have an opinion on the matter or not is irrelevent. You tell people that they shouldn't care about things that don't effect them when it's the heighth of hypocrasy because you are on here literally telling people not to care about things that don't effect them when this doesn't effect you. It's a forum. people come here to have opinions. You should consider being more open minded and less of a snake manipulating other people's opinions so you can be "right".

 

[petros]

Being a single male does not cause pedophilia.

Or a single woman.