ChatterBank28 mins ago
Abuse In The Church Of England
More shame for the church.
Safeguarding doesn't work it seems.
https:/
Safeguarding doesn't work it seems.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi - // AH, I haven't put words into your mouth. I've asked you a question. //
If your question refers to the 'inspiration' for the abuse we are discussing, then indirectly, it's the bible - any text can be twisted to provide excuses for appalling behaviour.
I am sure there are numerous religious paedophiles who tell themselves that this is what God wants - it's really that easy if you want it to be.
If your question refers to the 'inspiration' for the abuse we are discussing, then indirectly, it's the bible - any text can be twisted to provide excuses for appalling behaviour.
I am sure there are numerous religious paedophiles who tell themselves that this is what God wants - it's really that easy if you want it to be.
naomi - // AH, //any text can be twisted to provide excuses for appalling behaviour. //
Which text would that be? //
Any text - the clue is in the use of the word 'any' in my response.
Charles Manson used the lyrics to The Beatles' Helter Skelter - it's easy, anyone can do it with anything, anywhere.
Which text would that be? //
Any text - the clue is in the use of the word 'any' in my response.
Charles Manson used the lyrics to The Beatles' Helter Skelter - it's easy, anyone can do it with anything, anywhere.
AH, We’re not talking about Charles Manson. You claimed that priests abuse children in the name of God and claimed biblical texts their inspiration. Asked to provide those texts, you can’t. I think your purpose in making this utterly ludicrous claim is solely to have a go at Theland and nothing more.
Ps. If you’ve read the bible I’m a monkey’s uncle - and I’m not.
Ps. If you’ve read the bible I’m a monkey’s uncle - and I’m not.
// You claimed that priests abuse children in the name of God and claimed biblical texts their inspiration. Asked to provide those texts,//
the usual
well didnt Michael Jackson refer to veeno as Jesus - juice?
and here we have
https:/
this one persuaded gullible young men that they could be nearer God if the prayed naked whilst the Bishop looked on from his throne... takes some beating
or
http://
I am astounded to read that someone actually thinks ( or - - - believes ) that a priest should abuse a child and keep God out of it
but heigh ho this is AB
so stranger things have been written
the usual
well didnt Michael Jackson refer to veeno as Jesus - juice?
and here we have
https:/
this one persuaded gullible young men that they could be nearer God if the prayed naked whilst the Bishop looked on from his throne... takes some beating
or
http://
I am astounded to read that someone actually thinks ( or - - - believes ) that a priest should abuse a child and keep God out of it
but heigh ho this is AB
so stranger things have been written
naomi - // AH, We’re not talking about Charles Manson. //
You asked - what texts? I provided you with a response that backs my point, which is that Charles Manson used the text of Beatles lyrics to 'inspire' is murderous behaviour, and suddenly you decide - "We're not talking about Charles Manson".
It is somewhat discourteous of you to ask for an example, and then dismiss it when you get one - not in the spirit of debate at all.
// You claimed that priests abuse children in the name of God and claimed biblical texts their inspiration. Asked to provide those texts, you can’t. //
Fortunately, being neither a priest or a paedophile, I am not qualified to point out the texts, but I maintain my premise that it is more than reasonable that a priest grooming a victim is going to bring both God and the bible into his persuasion, and I think if you took a reasonable and detached view, you can see that I have a case for my viewpoint.
// I think your purpose in making this utterly ludicrous claim is solely to have a go at Theland and nothing more. //
You are welcome to think what you wish, but of course, although you find trouble with the notion - you thinking something does not automatically make it correct - speaking of which ...
// Ps. If you’ve read the bible I’m a monkey’s uncle - and I’m not. //
It appears that actually, you are, because I have read the bible, and that is for me to know, and you to deny based entirely on your personal prejudices.
But if you want to make a fool of yourself in front of the assembled company with another of your sweeping and unproven statements, and link yourself to a primate family, don't let me stop you.
You asked - what texts? I provided you with a response that backs my point, which is that Charles Manson used the text of Beatles lyrics to 'inspire' is murderous behaviour, and suddenly you decide - "We're not talking about Charles Manson".
It is somewhat discourteous of you to ask for an example, and then dismiss it when you get one - not in the spirit of debate at all.
// You claimed that priests abuse children in the name of God and claimed biblical texts their inspiration. Asked to provide those texts, you can’t. //
Fortunately, being neither a priest or a paedophile, I am not qualified to point out the texts, but I maintain my premise that it is more than reasonable that a priest grooming a victim is going to bring both God and the bible into his persuasion, and I think if you took a reasonable and detached view, you can see that I have a case for my viewpoint.
// I think your purpose in making this utterly ludicrous claim is solely to have a go at Theland and nothing more. //
You are welcome to think what you wish, but of course, although you find trouble with the notion - you thinking something does not automatically make it correct - speaking of which ...
// Ps. If you’ve read the bible I’m a monkey’s uncle - and I’m not. //
It appears that actually, you are, because I have read the bible, and that is for me to know, and you to deny based entirely on your personal prejudices.
But if you want to make a fool of yourself in front of the assembled company with another of your sweeping and unproven statements, and link yourself to a primate family, don't let me stop you.
naomi - // AH, I read the first couple of lines of your post. You provided nothing that backs your point. //
Perhaps you need to offer the courtesy of reading all of it - I read all of your posts before I response, how else can I respond and know what I am talking about - or indeed not talking about.
Perhaps you need to offer the courtesy of reading all of it - I read all of your posts before I response, how else can I respond and know what I am talking about - or indeed not talking about.
erm I have read the first few lines....
bit prejudiced what?
but hey this is AB so no harm done
no or yes - I read every word of Naomi's scripts in the hope that I er will be inspired ....
and funnily enough - charles mansons lawyer has just croaked - obit in the Times - 200 objections in three days in the trial that took 100 days.
Manson he said should not be convicted he said because Manson was not present and the evidence for his involvement was oral and hearsay.
bit prejudiced what?
but hey this is AB so no harm done
no or yes - I read every word of Naomi's scripts in the hope that I er will be inspired ....
and funnily enough - charles mansons lawyer has just croaked - obit in the Times - 200 objections in three days in the trial that took 100 days.
Manson he said should not be convicted he said because Manson was not present and the evidence for his involvement was oral and hearsay.
