Religion discussion - muslims, jews, buddhist, and christians

Especially family members! The single most dangerous member is the woman's boyfriend or a new husband. These two types are 40 times more likely to hurt a child than the biological father. I have seen way too many cases where the mother would allow the stepfather to give bath, dress and touch her daughters, and, in some situations, look the other way while the pos would actually have an intercourse with the kid.

Any man that allows the so-called 'family friend' linger around is a f****** nut. Men have no friends. Only 'buddies'. Huge difference. Those FF's often are the worst enemies just waiting for an opportunity.

Trust is how evil succeeds. Trust should be the LAST, not the default, MO, and only if absolutely there is no other way. ER is the best example.

How many moron parents sent their kids to spend time with a priest is mind boggling. And for what? To talk about Jesus? How about talking to the kid about Jesus yourself?

Or when your daughter has to see a doctor, you are to be with her the entire time. If the doc says he needs privacy with her, this is when your middle finger is supposed to be used just as God intended.

The don't trust anyone rule cannot be observed strictly, 100% of the time. I got it. But, vigilance and bulls*** detectors should always be operational and in good order.

This is the first time I pretty much entirely agree with Rich Mazur... (based on my personal experiences, unfortunately)

I'd just like to add that not only parents should be more vigilant but they also should educate their children (kids and teenagers alike) about sexual abuse and how to react to it. Because kids don't know. Especially in case of sexual abuse perpetrated by family members related by blood or people with some kind of authority and public trust (like doctors, teachers, etc.). In case of family members it's such a taboo that I don't think it even crosses parents' minds that it's possible. It's too difficult and embarrassing for them to talk about it and later on the kids pay for their squeamishness with lifelong traumas. I think talking about it also makes it easier for the kids to tell their parents if something like that happens - they won't feel so embarassed when talking about it in the future.

Teaching kids some healthy assertiveness is a good thing too, I think. Probably especially in case of girls who are usually expected to be always nice and polite.

Not that long ago I had to educate my mom so she wouldn't force or encourage my little niece to give hugs and kisses to adults (including me) if my niece doesn't want to do that herself. I told her to teach her giving "high five" and shaking hands instead when greeting someone. It's better if such education starts early, so kids know they are allowed to say "no" to adults in such situations.

I don't know, people are mixing stuff up. They say paedophile if a dude go after 17 years old girl, nowdays is oft diffcult to say if a girl is 17 or 20.

Aslo in USA they talk about paedophiles if a kid in qestion was under 18 - so no, debate has no well defined subject.


well, a bishop in the USA who were to deal with the problem is a well established homosexual, has been for years, I don't know if he is a paedophile but a gay he is.

OK!
Now, if we were talking about paedophiles only that would be about 50/50 or say 60/40 ratio of abused boys verusus girls - right?
Now the ratio is like about 80-90% boys.It is not about an easy acces to boys.Girls go to church too OK?

Also what is called peadophiles is a very tiny minority of those cases - mostly those stats are about teens.

So - yes this 'gay factor' matters very much.


hmm, how about why would an adult heterosexual would wnat to abuse boys? eh? which is like what 80-90% of the cases?

By t he way sure - it is not confined to the Church - there is more abuse ratio wise in any other given institution. It cames with the territory with abuse of power, trust ans so on.....

If we go outside Europe (including usa) abuse of boys is rampant.

The only reason the onus is so much on the RCC is a progressive agenda.

I tried to instill the same at the church I attend to no avail.
Some of those older women look very forward to those hugs from the men of the church on Sunday with full intentions.
Some of the younger, boys and girls, are innocent to some of those, men's and women's, intentions.
And you can certainly tell which hugs are just hugs and which ones are not by the body contact involved.
Some of those old hags even TRY to kiss men on the lips when they get a hug. Yuk !
Women of all ages are just as guilty as the men.
Nobody would be getting any if the men started a 'Me Too' movement.

do you have children?


well? So what? are they always nice and polite? don't think so, also you confuse nice and polite with meek.

By the way girls and women should be nice and polite, that is a part of a social deal in our civilization, Alas boys know if they cross the line - they get their ass kicked. Are you really hoping for an equality? I think not, you're simply confused like most people.

It's the modern degradation of language intended to make it impossible to speak on certain topics in an intelligent manner. The goal of politically imposed terminology is to make people stupid.

No one should comment on pedophilia (sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) unless they also understand
hebephilia - attraction to young adolescents (roughly 11-14)
and
ephebophilia - attraction to late adolescents (roughly 15-19)

Discussions of sexual predations by adults on minors need to take orientation and the age of the target into consideration.

No way, I don't want equality. I want women to be a lot tougher and assertive, with the two middle fingers cocked and ready, and 'f*** off' right behind.

Picture this. It's 1 am and Woman #1 is awaken by a knock on the door. She gets up, asks who it is and when the stranger says that he would like to use the phone, she opens the door.

Woman #2 is awaken, walks up to the door to make sure he can hear her, dials 911 and says, I have some a-hole trying to break in. I want a squad car immediately.

Woman 3# is awaken, grabs her pistol from the night stand, walks up to the door, chambers the gun and says, get lost you piece of **** before I blow your head off. Then she dials 911 and says, I have some a-hole trying to break in. I am armed and ready to take care of the sob if he breaks in.

Here is the question: Which of these women has the best chance of survival? Which one should be the model for all women to copy?

BTW, Woman #1 is not fiction. It actually happened. She was raped and murdered withing minutes. She was also well educated and very nice. And that is why she is dead now.

I actually agree with your post.

In the end,these are all unwanted sexual perversions......but how far do you take it?
What is the cut off point?
Pedos are evil.We all agree.
How about Necrophiliacs?
What about bestiality?
Gays?

They need to have the instructions where it is OK to stick in and where it's not tattooed on their pokers.

Merged:

Do Islam and Vatican have similar agendas- to use religion to negate ethoses or create them? Polish opinion?

Topic is interesting and deserve exchange of opinions and discussion. Thanks in advance to all participants.

I think that similarity exist.

I agree with you, but at the same time your 'don't trust anyone rule' is likely to have children grow up neurotic and wary of everyone. As you said, it's simply not possible to enforce 100% of the time, so if a child is unfortunate enough to get abused because a parent has no choice but to leave a child with a family member/ friend/anyone male who takes advantage of the situation, is that parent stupid as you stated in an earlier post? Blaming the parents for the actions of paedophiles is wrong, there is only ever one person to blame.


Choir boys, altar boys. They are given 'jobs' to do within the church and as such I think there is much more opportunity for boys to be taken advantage of than girls. I am not ruling out that some paedophiles may be gay but that is about as relevant as whether they are heterosexual. It is a huge leap to say that because gay men are attracted to members of the same sex, that they must also be attracted to young boys. Many paedophiles are married with children of their own for example.


I agree with you, but the problem lies in the fact that the RCC have been keeping it covered up and this is why in recent years headlines are being made. It is not only the covering up, it is the fact that known abusers within the church have been moved onto other parishes to abuse yet more children, and that is unforgiveable. Another example of a cover up:

independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-sex-abuse-catholic-school-ampleforth-downside-iicsa-inquiry-a8484406.html


Rubbish! It is for the reasons I've stated above. In other institutions/organisations, if someone is caught abusing children, there are consequences to their actions, as in they are usually arrested, charged and imprisoned if they are found guilty, NOT defended, covered up for and moved somewhere else to start their sick perversions all over again. You expect the public not to be outraged when they find out that RCC officials were complicit in the sexual abuse of children?

The problem is that the celibacy rules tend to filter out those with healthy sexuality (gay or straight) while funneling in a larger percentage of those who see the priesthood as a way of managing unwanted desires (whether gay or youth oriented).


One word - Hollywood, decades of horrific sexual abuse of children and....

Also sexual abuse by rabbis or imams, both widespread, doesn't get people riled up largely because the media isn't so interested in it.


Someone who has read a _lot_ on this has pieced together a timeline where Benedict faced fierce opposition in his attempts to punish abusers and essentially forced out of office. Francis was chosen because they were hoping that his general liberal positions on social questions would mean that people would give him a pass for his apathy on child sexual abuse. It makes sense.

"healthy sexuality" and "gay"...ROFL

someone soiled his diapers again......

Nope. My sphincter works great. Never had anything up my arse like those of "healthy sexuality" you talk about ROFL

See, it's ignorance like yours that's partly responsible for so many kids getting buggered by priests....

Nope. Homosexuals are the group where paedophilia cases are most frequent and because of leftards and their ill "tolleration" we have homosexuals being allowed into everywhere including priesthood.

hmmm you haven't been in the church recently have you? plenty of girls around, as for a choir as far as I remember there were/is predominance of girls.


well, it is relevant as there is a bigger chance of a gay being a paedophile than a heterosexual. (don't remember an actual ratio)

You also need to remember we are not talking about pedophiles only but also about people that go after teen boys and that skew the numbers heavily towards gays. You're not saying that some heterosexual would go after 15 years old boy rather then a girl. that makes no sense.


Ok, I have never had a problem with a priest. Being an altar boy. Getting religious instruction and so on....In my experience they are/were cool dudes for the most part.

Yet in boy scouts I have been groped by a married instructor when I was 16 years old. Thing is at the 16 I was already big and strong lad and I just gave him a look after a few secedes or surprise and confusion and that was that. I never reported as it was my word again his. Probably should have well... too late now.

So being a married doesn't really make you a heterosexual. Was he a pedophile - no.

@"Rubbish! It is for the reasons I've stated above."
Nah, it is clearly a progressive agenda. They don't care about abuse they just want to stir people like you and other against the Church.

liberals love Francis who done absolutely nothing to deal with the problem. He should be removed together with bishop McCarrick (a know homosexual) and other gays in the position of power. IF gays have nothing to do with the abuse - why they defend each other eh?

It is clear that Benedict was removed by a power gay lobby. Yet, your progressives go after John Paul the II with a slander while they condone Francis and his inaction to sort the problem out. Now tell me it has nothing to do with ideological agenda and I will laugh.

...but it's Putin who is the bad guy because he said - I am paraphrasing - "no way you, perverts, will be allowed anywhere near our kids".

Yeah, Putin is a terrible person who does not give Russian children a chance to discover their true sexual identity. THAT is child abuse, not an occasional, if slightly involuntary, encounter with a gay priest when the trusting parents are not around.

Putin is a messiah sent to make Russia great again, which no one can deny that he did ehen you compare Yeltsin Russia to putins, and liberate the orthodox world from homosexuality, liberalism and destructive western influences. If only Slavs wouldn't fight amongst each other we'd be fine. Atm, putin is the ballsiest best world leader with Trump a distant 2nd. Despite having an economy the size of Texas alone, no one ***** with putin or Russia

According to some here, what you wrote makes you a Russian troll. Welcome to the club. I felt so lonely.
Putin for president. I mean the US. I would actually hire the guy for 4 years and pay him 100 bucks for every illegal caught and deported and 200 for caught and shot. Any judge screwing with him would be advised to move from a high rise condo into a ranch house.

By invading other countries and working old people to death to try to pay for it! Great messiah there...

And what countries did the big bad Putin invade? Iraq? Afghanistan? Panama? Yugoslavia? Or was it Vietnam? I need help.

It's big and next to Poland and rhymes with your nickname (Pooh brain)

You are so right. I stand corrected.

One morning, big badass Putin wakes up and says: I am bored so I am going to send me some troops to Ukraine. Never mind what happened in 2014. Never mind that the legit pres was chased out. Never mind I will lose access to my base. Never mind that Ukraine is getting chummy with NATO, the snake that only gets bigger and longer. Never mind any of that. I am just bored so let's have some fun.

Did I get it right?

I'm talking about 2014 pooh brain.


Getting elected is no guarantee that a person gets to stay in office if they abuse their power (impossible for Russian trolls to understand, but try)

He was deposed in a popular uprising (for stealing the country blind). Calling him legitimate is the sign of someone who likes to svck Putin's member

Absolutely. If only the us had a few successful invasions or annexations recently we'd be much better off. We go into countries and spend trillions. Putin goes in and gets territory, more tax payers and all the existing resources in Crimea. Meanwhile NATO does jack sh1t. They didn't even bother taking all.the oil or gold reserves from Iraq. Instead it made the us have even more debt when we should've profited. America and NATO don't seem to understand that to the victor belong the spoils.

Plus he's made homosexual expressions basically all illegal. No pride parades, no disgusting adverts about fag couples, none of that. On top of exponentially increasing Russian wages, rebuilding the military back to Soviet era prowess and using the UN seat at every advantage.

There's a reason why putin has 80% approval. I can't think of any western politician that even comes close.

Are you kidding? It's a huge expensive white elephant without a landbridge (the whole idea behind "Novorossiya" was to annex enough of Ukraine to make Crimea less a drain on resources).

The people of Ukraine however made short work of Novorossiya (besides the hapless Donbass the most socially dysfunctional part).

The whole idea of raising retirement age is to try to pay for the useless white elephant.

Next time you're in Poland be sure to spread your worship of Putin everywhere you go. It would be especially interesting if you do so in the hearing of Ukrainians (or Polish people who remember what trying to be friends with Russia brings Poland -nothing good.... ever)

We are so f***** dumb that when we win we lose. When we lose we lose, too. Only in the mind of the western man this crap makes sense because it feeeeels good to be righteous. Another symptom of the messiah complex - a mental disorder with only one cure: looking straight into the eyes of death. Russians and Israelis had that experience and that is why screwing with them comes at a steep cost.

As I wrote before, fear is a lot cheaper than love.