Why is *GO TO HELL* Such a Popular Curse?

Post Reply New Topic

And why isn't *GO TO HEAVEN* an equally popular blessing?

I feel like the way some people talk about god and the bible and sinners and hell, I'd rather be in hell with my family and friends than in heaven with all the hateful militant christians.

After Abu Ghraib and the pedophile priests, yeah...I understand.

It still implies a death wish, for one...

If catholicism wasn't so full of s**t and priests could get married, none of those molestations would have ever happened.

Heaven and hell aren't states that you move to once you're no longer breathing. You can be very much alive and still be in either place.

If they could get married, do you think they'd marry women, cause I'm pretty sure that there's a whole personality that seeks to get into priesthood, and there's a very feminine, boyish (or butch - on the other side of the spectrum) yet there's also a cruel aspect to that persona as well. What kind of woman would that hypothetically attract? And that whole notion of being *pure* for the lord. That's so hysterical. I'm laughing even as this is being written. Farce, farce and more farce.

Well I just think its all a little too much to be a coincidence. Considering that only like 30% of child molesters are actual pedophiles, and considering that priests can't marry, what are the chances that those priests also happen to be part of that 30%?
It's either the marrying thing or something else about being a priest. Either way, I just doubt any of those guys really were pedophiles, which makes what they did even worse and more evil and harder for me to understand. So either way, catholicism is to blame, and the priests too, but still it wouldn't've happened if it wasn't for whatever the problem is with the catholic church that drives them to it, which I suspect is the marriage thing. And I had more reasons, but I forgot em like a second ago.

People who want to molest children are attracted to occupations where they are guaranteed access to children. All the better if the occupation is one where the occupant is considered trustworthy. The liklihood of molesters in the teaching, nursery attendant and priesthood occupations is going to be higher because molesters will be drawn to enter them in order to gain access.

But none of this absolves the church authorities from their responsibility and guilt for not removing and prosecuting the molesters when their crimes were discovered. They had a responsibility to the molested children, the general public, the Church and God to remove these priests from any contact with children, and turn them over to the police. Their failure to act is a sin every bit as vile as the molesters themselves.

There's most definitely a pedophile gene mutancy. Someone either has it or doesn't - and sometimes it can be controlled and sometimes it just lays dormant for years and years until one day, like the demon that is - breaks all hell loose and sacrifices a couple of children on the altar of his *passion*.

It's controlled by a sense of decency and with a distinct sense of one's own humanity and morales which for some odd reason seems to becoming less and less of an *issue* - even as we speak. *Anything goes and it's all ok.* And that is the mindset of a pedophile and ya know - I'll bet it all started with the first rebellious demon who ever got the *notion* that the original texts of the Testement were old fashioned and *outdated* and they needed to be re-written and re-vised, changing the laws and basically adding lies instead of the Truth.

Last edited by jjstar on 29 Oct 2007, 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, I pretty much agree.
But I don't think these guys became priests for that reason or even considered it before they were priests.
In that case they would be elementary school teachers instead!
The church is to blame just as much as the priests, not only for covering it up and s**t, but for their stupid rules that led to it.

There's no pedophile "gene". Thats like saying homosexuality is hereditary.

I disagree. The Catholic Church's "stupid rules" aren't to blame. Entering holy orders or becoming ordained is occasionally a means of purging or denying private sins. If someone feels they have an evil inside them, then they might try to deny it by becoming a priest in an attempt to make themselves holy. But since priesthood doesn't work that way, because priests are human just like everyone else, the demons inside don't go away with denial - they just go into hiding, and can come back later at any time.

The Chuch's failings in this regard did not include the requirement for celibate male priests. Where they failed was in screening the ordinands who went through seminary, in keeping aware of the inner struggles of their priests, and in failing to act when the abuse was discovered.

I believe the Catholic Church's requirement for celibate male clergy is wrong for several reasons, but the risk of pedophile priests is not one of them.

You're absolutely correct here. Right on. Thanks for shining some light into their personas. I'd completely missed the deviancy slant utilized by them.

Oh yeah, I never considered that. Especially since it seems like most of the children molested were boys, a god fearing individual who believes all forms of lust are sinful, especially homosexuality, would do whatever they can to avoid facing god's wrath, and god would never let a priest go to hell.
So if they really are pedos, then I guess what makes it worse in my mind is the holy factor, they are supposed to be messengers of god and holier than thou, but what they did is far from god's will and far from holy. But that doesn't make it any worse than a pedo becoming an elementary school teacher because I can f*****g guarantee you they wouldn't seek that profession if they never planned on touching any kids.
Hard to say which one is worse. It seems like joining a certain line of work just for that reason is worse, but doing something in your line of work that is against the very reason you joined it in the first place and against everything it stands for is also pretty bad.

No it's not the same thing. Genes are inherited from BOTH parents (remember?) and there's also inheritance that goes back many generations - and also keep in mind that genes are created every single moment of a person's life, based on thought, speech and action. It's not just the inherited set that comprises who we are - but it's the daily living and choices that determine who we become. So while someone could *inherit* the tendency to be straight, gay whatever, acting on that inheritance thereafter becomes an issue of choice which in turn then determine the genetic structure, ad infintum.

Deviancy is passed down from family to family, perp to victim - but like everything else can skip generations and even if it's directly *given* via DNA - it always stays dormant until provoked and even then it's an act of will to let it take over or to conquer it and create a new positive gene in the mutant's stead.