Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

From Viz:

 

Viz? More like Gay Times!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

One individual does not a metric make

No-one claimed it did - but very substantial evidence was given, showing that we were not talking about an individual, rather a powerful subcultre which until recently was openly part of the 'gay rights' movement and portrayed their right to abuse boys as a human right issue.

 

So powerful was the lobby in fact, that they even had politicans openly supporting them - I have produced evidence showing that politicians in both UK and Germany were formerly sympathetic to 'paedophile rights'.

 

Paedophile movies were openly part of the Scan catalogue of porno movies up until the 80s.

I dont know what this Scan catalogue was - but even still, that doesnt make it alright.

 

However this does not mean that men who fuck men are more likely to fuck kids than men who fuck women are more likely to fuck kids.

In fact they are over-represented in statistics.

 

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

 

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

 

Further to that, suggesting that a 'deviancy'.. which is wholly subjective.

Human sexuality is not subjective, its an objective reality as per biological science.

 

Everone must bow to science!

 

(I has missed your diatr...I mean post before, lol, I only just saw it thanks to Harcus raking up old graves )

[phoenix]

Nature is promiscuous , especially sparrows !

 

There is an optimum period in which a woman can conceive in any given month. If you only wish to engage in sex for procreative reasons those days can be worked out , generally but as CS says not absolutely.

 

Being sensitive to a woman's cycle should work but who is that sensitive , especially given that sex and alcohol often accompany one another.

 

All the taboos , repressions and fuck ups associated with sex are a consequence of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and the other fuck ups mentioned by CS.

 

There's nothing god given about it. There's good lovin' and bad.

 

Don't forget to wash your hands now !

[robbojunior]

Can't disagree with any of this.

 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Can't disagree with any of this.

 

 

Good Lord!

 

That fat pederast is the last person you should listen to.

 

The reason Fry resents God so much is because he hates himself. How many times has he overdosed now?

 

(However many times, he obviously isnt trying hard enough lol.)

 

Look at his life of drug and alcohol abuse, which all boils down to him trying to escape from the reality of his life.

 

Fry brags about these drug-addled episodes and turns them into comedy - but the reality of addiction is much less humorous.

 

Seems quite strange that doesnt it? Fry is rich, succesful, talented, popular and famous - yet he is consumed with self-loathing and bitterness.

 

Perhaps hes not quite so glad to be gay after all?

 

His arguments are crap -

 

1) regarding stuff like diseases which can unfairly affect people: the only reason we have a concept of "fair" is because we also know what "unfair" is. You cant have one without the other.

 

Just the same as you cant separate light and darkness, right and wrong, good and evil, happiness and sadness etc - if there is a scale by which we measure or understand things, then it simply must be the case that theres a sh*tty end of the scale.

 

You cant be top of the league, without a bunch of worse teams sitting under you.

 

Happiness is what we all want in life, but you cant truly be happy, unless you also know what it means to be sad.

 

Look at when we won the league cup last year, our first trophy for 19 years. Every one of those barren years had a multiplier effect on how much we all loved winning that trophy. Our years of pain with no trophies made us really appreciate our win. Conversely, if we won trophies every year, a mere league cup win would be received like "meh / pffft".

 

He says it would have been easy for God to make a Universe without suffering / sadness. He uses the unpleasant example of some insect which eats folks eyes, in an effort to win support via emotion response, not via logic.

 

He is right that God could have made a world without sadness, but - as above - that would also have been a world without happiness. So quite a bland and pointless place, at the end of the day.

 

I dont think Fry knows what it means to be happy. He doesnt even know what his dick is for.

 

Suffering is useful in some ways - as per above it teaches us what it means to be happy. It is probably useful in other ways too, but in ways which our limited human intellect cannot grasp.

 

In any case, I dont know why he and other critics of God fuss about this life so much - its really the next one which is important. Our experiences in this life only reaffirm there are two basic philosophies for man to follow: you can chose to fast in anticipation of a feast, or you can choose wild-excess and then expect a dreadful hangover.

 

 

2) Its absurd for Fry to attack God as "monstrous" etc; if there is indeed a God, logic dictates that He can only be a completely perfect being - so, not "monstrous" etc - else He would not be God at all.

 

 

He seems quite mixed up in general, at times talking as though he accepts God exists (judging by the text of his interview). He says of God:

 

“It’s perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.

 

Even a quick persusal shows that there is little simple, pure or clean about Frys life of celebrity excess, drug abuse, depression, flirting with suicide and homosexuality/pederasty.

 

God is truth and so anyone who is living a lie (like Fry) will naturally hate Him.

 

Despite my criticising him, I actually like Stephen Fry, I think its shame he has become such a bitter character. He was good in Jeeves and Worcester and also Blackadder Goes Forth. Nothing especially recent though - something else he is doubtless resentful about (esp as Hugh laurie went onto become big in the USA lol)

[Bluto10]

Did t read all of that;I have a limited attention span.

But CS is bang on the nail with that about fry; who would listen to what that mess has to say.

Idiots. That's who.

[spamspamspam]

Can't disagree with any of this.

 

 

Gay Burne's face is a fucking picture through that

[spamspamspam]

 

Good Lord!

 

That fat pederast is the last person you should listen to.

 

The reason Fry resents God so much is because he hates himself. How many times has he overdosed now?

 

(However many times, he obviously isnt trying hard enough lol.)

 

Look at his life of drug and alcohol abuse, which all boils down to him trying to escape from the reality of his life.

 

Fry brags about these drug-addled episodes and turns them into comedy - but the reality of addiction is much less humorous.

 

Seems quite strange that doesnt it? Fry is rich, succesful, talented, popular and famous - yet he is consumed with self-loathing and bitterness.

 

Perhaps hes not quite so glad to be gay after all?

 

His arguments are crap -

 

1) regarding stuff like diseases which can unfairly affect people: the only reason we have a concept of "fair" is because we also know what "unfair" is. You cant have one without the other.

 

Just the same as you cant separate light and darkness, right and wrong, good and evil, happiness and sadness etc - if there is a scale by which we measure or understand things, then it simply must be the case that theres a sh*tty end of the scale.

 

You cant be top of the league, without a bunch of worse teams sitting under you.

 

Happiness is what we all want in life, but you cant truly be happy, unless you also know what it means to be sad.

 

Look at when we won the league cup last year, our first trophy for 19 years. Every one of those barren years had a multiplier effect on how much we all loved winning that trophy. Our years of pain with no trophies made us really appreciate our win. Conversely, if we won trophies every year, a mere league cup win would be received like "meh / pffft".

 

He says it would have been easy for God to make a Universe without suffering / sadness. He uses the unpleasant example of some insect which eats folks eyes, in an effort to win support via emotion response, not via logic.

 

He is right that God could have made a world without sadness, but - as above - that would also have been a world without happiness. So quite a bland and pointless place, at the end of the day.

 

I dont think Fry knows what it means to be happy. He doesnt even know what his dick is for.

 

Suffering is useful in some ways - as per above it teaches us what it means to be happy. It is probably useful in other ways too, but in ways which our limited human intellect cannot grasp.

 

In any case, I dont know why he and other critics of God fuss about this life so much - its really the next one which is important. Our experiences in this life only reaffirm there are two basic philosophies for man to follow: you can chose to fast in anticipation of a feast, or you can choose wild-excess and then expect a dreadful hangover.

 

 

2) Its absurd for Fry to attack God as "monstrous" etc; if there is indeed a God, logic dictates that He can only be a completely perfect being - so, not "monstrous" etc - else He would not be God at all.

 

 

He seems quite mixed up in general, at times talking as though he accepts God exists (judging by the text of his interview). He says of God:

 

“It’s perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.

 

Even a quick persusal shows that there is little simple, pure or clean about Frys life of celebrity excess, drug abuse, depression, flirting with suicide and homosexuality/pederasty.

 

God is truth and so anyone who is living a lie (like Fry) will naturally hate Him.

 

Despite my criticising him, I actually like Stephen Fry, I think its shame he has become such a bitter character. He was good in Jeeves and Worcester and also Blackadder Goes Forth. Nothing especially recent though - something else he is doubtless resentful about (esp as Hugh laurie went onto become big in the USA lol)

 

Have you ever owned a pet CS?

 

Do you create an environment for that pet thats harmful to it or nourishes it?

 

I

[tommo1903]

You didn't really counter any of his points there though, Clydeside min.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

You didn't really counter any of his points there though, Clydeside min.

 

I did too - his main thrust (ooer!) was whining about the fact that, sometimes, life is tough.

 

Folk get ill, or get hurt etc, through no fault of their own. He seems bewildered as to why this is, and thinks its unfair and wrong.

 

I tried to explained why I think life is tough at times and indeed necessarily so.

 

(NB I read his remakrs via http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/01/stephen-fry-god-evil-maniac-irish-tv )

 

The undercurrent to his remarks is that he is anti-God, because he is anti-truth, because of his lifestyle - which he doesnt want to accept is wrong.

[Bluto10]

Any man that marries another man who is 30years his junior clearly isn't mentally stable.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Have you ever owned a pet CS?

 

Do you create an environment for that pet thats harmful to it or nourishes it?

 

I

 

I have indeed owned a pet - my first was a hamster called Nibbles.

 

I didnt create any environment for Nibbles, (I do not possess such power), simply tried my best to look after him well within the environment which God created for us and all creatures.

 

But, even if I cleaned out his cage daily, gave him things to play with and constantly refreshed his food and water - he still might have dropped dead through some random illness.

 

Or maybe he might have broken his leg in the wheel I gave him to run in, or maybe his water bottle could have fallen off its mounting and squashed him. Or he could have choked on the food I gave him to eat.

 

I suppose that means that, in Frys book, I am an evil, capricious, monstrous maniac too.

 

EDIT - I miss Nibbles, he was a nice hamster.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

fry; who would listen to what that mess has to say.

Idiots. That's who.

 

Word.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Any man that marries another man who is 30years his junior clearly isn't mentally stable.

 

Aye, his taste is in his arse, as they say (no pun intended).

[spamspamspam]

 

I have indeed owned a pet - my first was a hamster called Nibbles.

 

I didnt create any environment for Nibbles, (I do not possess such power), simply tried my best to look after him well within the environment which God created for us and all creatures.

 

But, even if I cleaned out his cage daily, gave him things to play with and constantly refreshed his food and water - he still might have dropped dead through some random illness.

 

Or maybe he might have broken his leg in the wheel I gave him to run in, or maybe his water bottle could have fallen off its mounting and squashed him. Or he could have choked on the food I gave him to eat.

 

I suppose that means that, in Frys book, I am an evil, capricious, monstrous maniac too.

 

EDIT - I miss Nibbles, he was a nice hamster.

It's cage is its environment, so you did.

 

I notice though you didn't add any snakes, lice, worms or any other thing that would eat it. You just gave it a warm bed, food and something to run around in.

 

You were your hamsters God.

 

A fairer, less cruel God than the one made up by our ancestors and you still believe in and follow.

[fatjim]

 

The undercurrent to his remarks is that he is anti-God, because he is anti-truth, because of his lifestyle - which he doesnt want to accept is wrong.

 

What truth is he against?

 

Hopefully you will be able to back this truth up with peer reviewed evidence.

 

You don't want to accept that you are wrong. Which is why you still have an imaginary friend into adulthood.

[Ke1t]

What truth is he against?

 

Hopefully you will be able to back this truth up with peer reviewed evidence.

 

You don't want to accept that you are wrong. Which is why you still have an imaginary friend into adulthood.

He's talking about Truth as opposed to truth.

 

I keep correcting this error but he never listens.

[vanderark14]

I knew CS was slightly unstable but reading this thread for the first time in a while confirms him is a certified lunatic.

[Ke1t]

I knew CS was slightly unstable but reading this thread for the first time in a while confirms him is a certified lunatic.

Usually I'll only hand out the +1s to wind folk up, but you sir can have one because it's deserved.

[fatjim]

He's talking about Truth as opposed to truth.

 

I keep correcting this error but he never listens.

 

Well he was made in God's image. He doesn't listen either.

[Quagmire]

http://nypost.com/2015/12/10/priest-paid-his-male-sex-master-from-collection-plate-lawsuit/

 

Another Catholic priest who likes to get freaky.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

http://nypost.com/2015/12/10/priest-paid-his-male-sex-master-from-collection-plate-lawsuit/

 

Another Catholic priest who likes to get freaky.

 

I saw that - thieving c*nt.

 

What is pertinent regarding his behaviour is his same sex attractions, not the fact he is a priest.

[amancalledbuck]

RIP Nibbles.

[Henry]

 

The role of religion should be removed from the school curriculum, according to a humanist organisation.

A report commissioned by the Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) said the position of religion had weakened in most areas of life in recent years.

But it said laws protecting religion in education had, if anything, been strengthened.

A Church of Scotland spokesman said religious groups from all faiths made appropriate contributions to education.

The 355-page HSS report, written by academics at Glasgow University, cited the growth of Sunday trading and the rise in popularity of non-religious marriages as evidence Scotland was becoming a more secular society.

HSS chief executive Gordon MacRae said: "The motivation for this commission came from the increased public and political awareness of the changing role of religion and belief in Scottish public life."

He added: "At a time when 47%, nearly one in two households in Scotland, say they have no religion, we think it is time to move to a secular education system.

"Every state school in Scotland is a faith school. We hope this document can be a catalyst for a new debate."

The report said the current education system was established by two Acts of Parliament in 1872 and 1918, when Catholic schools were absorbed into the state system.

All state schools are required to ensure all pupils take part in 'religious observance' - at least once a week for primary pupils and at least once a month for secondary schools.

These provisions were reinforced in 2004 by the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, and accepted in a government circular in 2011 under the SNP.

The report outlines other areas in which the position of religion is guaranteed by law in the education system:

Appointment of 'religious representatives' on local authority education committees

The General Teaching Council of Scotland (GTS) is required to include one member from Church of Scotland and one from the Roman Catholic Church in its 11-strong council

Parent councils at denominational schools required to co-opt one representative of the denominational body.

One of the report's authors, Callum Brown, professor of Modern European History at Glasgow University, said: "There is no particular move at foot to change this, in comparison to changes, dramatic changes to marriage law, with the arrival of same-sex marriage in 2014.

"That was a phenomenal and ground-breaking change which doesn't seem to have an equivalent in relation to education."

The HSS said the growth of Sunday trading in recent years and the failure of Sabbatarian groups to prevent the development of ferry and air services to Presbyterian strongholds such as the Western Isles had also shown the weakening of the position of religion in Scottish life.

But Prof Jane Mair, of Glasgow University Law School, another co-author of the report, said laws concerning religion in schools had not shifted.

She said: "Although the idea of religious education focuses to a great extent on the idea of custom, we haven't gone back to look at the changing custom in society.

"There is still an expectation that people want a particular type of religious education, but perhaps we haven't, a society, really reviewed how that has changed."

The Very Rev John Chalmers, principal clerk to the Church of Scotland General Assembly, agreed there had been a decline in religious influence in society.

But he said it was not true to say the influence of religious groups in education was being strengthened.

He told BBC Scotland: "It was, after all, the church which put education in place, in every parish in Scotland.

"The influence couldn't have been greater in those days. Now the church is invited to participate where appropriate to participate in religious reflection in schools.

"It doesn't force that down anybody's throat. It is there, if invited, and it's there to contribute alongside other faiths and others from the ecumenical spectrum."

.

[chaos_defrost]

He is right that God could have made a world without sadness, but - as above - that would also have been a world without happiness. So quite a bland and pointless place, at the end of the day.

 

 

Isn't heaven supposed to be a world without sadness?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

deleted

[Clydeside_Sheep]

People who believe in God generally have something underlying which leads them to believe it's easier to believe in someone who doesn't exist rather than deal with reality.

 

As for Catholics they are the biggest bigots I've ever came across and a lot of them have turned a blind eye to paedo's rather than bother the church.

 

Religion is a lie originally used to brainwash and control the poor.

 

Hot air, no intellectual content whatsoever! (unsurprisingly)

 

And it is secular society which is afraid of reality, not "us".

[Clydeside_Sheep]

CS Sheep, do you think that using the term Pedarist to defend the catholic faith is slightly ironic?

 

It might be, if I had ever done so, but I havent.

 

I just point out that the crimes committed in church institutions were mostly by pedarists, not paedos.

 

The difference is important - if you are going to prevent a crime from happening again, then you need to properly understand it and its motives.

 

Covering up the truth about this is no better than those who covered up the crimes in the first place. In both cases, justice is relegated behind keeping up appearances.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

(post about schools)

 

 

The humanists (who represent no-one really) argument is erroneous at the end of the day. Thanks to human rights, everyone has the right to whatever kind of schooling they want for their family, provided there is adequate demand to make it viable.

 

But the humanists cannot demonstrate adequate demand, because they repreent no-one. And so they just demand that the puerile religious content in non-denom schools is replaced by puerile humanist content, But if theres a problem with forcing religion on people, then there is an equal problem with forcing humanism on people.

 

In any case, people can opt out of non-academic subjects, such as a religious class or Personal development etc, under Scots law, so there isnt really a problem here.

 

However, It is a fair point that, with the failure of protestantism, the content and identity of scots "non-denom" schools will likely change in coming years - and rightly so.

 

The CofS spokesman is wrong to suggest his organistion is responsible for introducing education to Scotland - a common myth. Sure, they made their contribution, like every generation has, but the concept of education for all, and the first schools and universities, were introduced to Scotland by you-know-who - 100s of years before the CofS even existed, and we will still be running educational institutions in Scotland 100s of years after the CofS has become defunct. Theres a nice thought eh?

[craegDAMH]

 

More accurate to say that a small amount of homosexual catholics clergy are pederasts.

 

This is the reality of the "child abuse" scandal, as evidence by the John Jay report (US) and others.

 

In reality 90% of the "children" were in fact sexually mature, adolescent males, as old as 17 - not "children".

 

It wasnt child abuse, it was pedestary.

 

But lets not go into that too much here and take the thread off topic.

 

As callous a dismissal of the institutionalised rape of children as you're likely to see.

 

If you are going to reference reports commissioned by Catholic Bishops to dispute these "child abuse" claims, at least fucking read it.

 

From page 6 of the report (you don't even have to read that much!!) : "The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14."

 

So only 27.3% were between the ages of 15-17. Even if all of these were "sexually mature, adolescent males" (which is not true), that still leave 62.7% who were absolutely, and definitely "children".

 

Don't you just hate it when the facts expose the truth about your kiddy-fucking cult?

 

But you're right, let's not take this off topic....