[Req] Carson Lecture by Paisley Admission

FrCrilly

Hi All,

Does anyone know how you get admission to the Paisley lecture on Carson. Do you just turn up or do you need tickets? If you need some form of ticket, how do you go about getting one.

Thanks In Advance

shay_562

You need a Hist membership card and, depending on how tight security is for the event, possibly a TCD student/staff card. Are you a TCD student? 'Cause that would make the whole thing an awful lot easier...

patzer117

Paisley is on in the Chamber in the GMB on Friday at 2pm. As far as I know College aren't allowing it to be held in any other other venue (dining hall is being used for lunch :rolleyes:, lecture theatres for lectures and Exam hall for registration) so numbers are quite limited. There is not guest list, everybody has to apply online for a ticket and there are only 200 places.

Fire regulations and security issues is what is limiting the number, crowds of over 350 have been in the chamber, but as he is a "head of state" college are being very strict.

http://paisley.thehist.com is where you should apply and it says the random draw will be held next week. You will definitely need a hist membership card and more than likely a student card - security will be very tight.

Alternatively email the auditor of the hist auditor@thehist.com and ask for a ticket

Running Bing

patzer117 wrote: »

Paisley is on in the Chamber in the GMB on Friday at 2pm. As far as I know College aren't allowing it to be held in any other other venue (dining hall is being used for lunch :rolleyes:, lecture theatres for lectures and Exam hall for registration) so numbers are quite limited. There is not guest list, everybody has to apply online for a ticket and there are only 200 places.

Fire regulations and security issues is what is limiting the number, crowds of over 350 have been in the chamber, but as he is a "head of state" college are being very strict.

http://paisley.thehist.com is where you should apply and it says the random draw will be held next week. You will definitely need a hist membership card and more than likely a student card - security will be very tight.

Alternatively email the auditor of the hist auditor@thehist.com and ask for a ticket

Dont see why crowds would be flocking to hear a biggoted racist talk about a murderer who set up a hideous organisation responsible for the death and torture of countless numbers of innocent people.:rolleyes:

Moorsy

Babybing wrote: »

Dont see why crowds would be flocking to hear a biggoted racist talk about a murderer who set up a hideous organisation responsible for the death and torture of countless numbers of innocent people.:rolleyes:

Probably because of the very reasons you just mentioned and that his ranting’ have been legitimised for decades by democracy.

shay_562

patzer_117 wrote:

You will definitely need a hist membership card and more than likely a student card

Student card is a definite - you'll need one to get in, so don't forget it on the day.

mizz.yelof!!!

shay, is hist membership a definate aswel ?

Sleazus

I'm 90% certain that it's open to all Trinity students, but given that the Hist pays the costs of guests travelling from all over the world (including the Prime Minister of Burma next Wednesday and the President of Mexico in November), it might be good form to pick up a membership. It's only e4.

patzer117

Babybing wrote:

Dont see why crowds would be flocking to hear a biggoted racist talk about a murderer who set up a hideous organisation responsible for the death and torture of countless numbers of innocent people.

Granted, it may not be your thing, but plenty of other people are interested. The talk isn't actually on Carson, as far as I am aware, that was just a way of getting him to come? The papers had it wrong, he's going to talk about lots of things, in a personal capacity, some of which will deal with Carson, but the majority of which will deal with himself and his experience

paperclip

I'm willing someone to ask him why he, a reasonable man, would choose to follow a church founded solely so Henry VIII could marry another woman? (Last count: six, few of which died naturally, added to which two high chancellors.) I mean, as opposed to a Church that dates back to Christ himself. I'm assuming, of course, that Paisley is a religious man. It just doesn't make sense, unless he's all about tradition post-16th century....
just a thought, ya know?

Tricity Bendix

paperclip wrote: »

I'm willing someone to ask him why he, a reasonable man, would choose to follow a church founded solely so Henry VIII could marry another woman? (Last count: six, few of which died naturally, added to which two high chancellors.) I mean, as opposed to a Church that dates back to Christ himself. I'm assuming, of course, that Paisley is a religious man. It just doesn't make sense, unless he's all about tradition post-16th century....
just a thought, ya know?

Paisley is the leader of the Free Presbyterian Church, which is significantly different in its teachings and theology from the Roman Catholic Church.

There is no doubt that Henty VIII had personal and political reasons for wanting to break away from the church, but he was capitalising on a growing sentiment within his own country which questioned many of Rome's preachings.

And when the hell has Paisley been reasonable?!

Running Bing

paperclip wrote: »

I'm willing someone to ask him why he, a reasonable man, would choose to follow a church founded solely so Henry VIII could marry another woman? (Last count: six, few of which died naturally, added to which two high chancellors.) I mean, as opposed to a Church that dates back to Christ himself. I'm assuming, of course, that Paisley is a religious man. It just doesn't make sense, unless he's all about tradition post-16th century....
just a thought, ya know?

Please tell me you are joking:eek::eek::eek::eek:

ApeXaviour

paperclip wrote: »

I'm willing someone to ask him why he, a reasonable man, would choose to follow a church founded solely so Henry VIII could marry another woman? (Last count: six, few of which died naturally, added to which two high chancellors.) I mean, as opposed to a Church that dates back to Christ himself. I'm assuming, of course, that Paisley is a religious man. It just doesn't make sense, unless he's all about tradition post-16th century....
just a thought, ya know?

Very strange post. Firstly you might ask the same of a large portion of the population of the UK. Secondly, to say "solely" is just naive. Thirdly, look at the state of the catholic church at the time, and look at what was implemented during the counter-reformation. Anglicanism and Catholicism really differ by very little.
Fourthly, and most importantly, the free presbyterian church is a break-off (of a break-off) of Presbyterianism, which has its roots in Calvinism, which originated in Geneva. So doesn't really have anything to do with big Henry, whatsoever.

As far as the Revd and Rt Hon. Dr. being reasonable goes... In my opinion, any religious fundamentalist, of which I consider paisley, is by definition devoid of reason. His honorary doctorate is from Bob Jones University (link leads to list of bigoted rules they impose), the only openly racist university in North America. Until recently it had a ban on inter-racial dating.

paperclip

When I said 'reasonable' I meant to say 'educated', that's what I get for posting at 1am...
Yes, I could also ask the same of a large portion of the UK, but I'm not in the UK and he's as good a representative as any. Anglicanism and Catholicism differ in actually rather massive ways- the difference between Transubstantation and Constansubstantation is huge in a theological sense.
I didn't know presbyterianism was a splinter of Calvinism, I thought it was a splinter off anglicanism. Sorry!
Finally....hahaha, Bob Jones University. Weird university, but funny name.

ApeXaviour

paperclip wrote: »

When I said 'reasonable' I meant to say 'educated', that's what I get for posting at 1am...
Yes, I could also ask the same of a large portion of the UK, but I'm not in the UK and he's as good a representative as any.

According to wikipedia he was educated at a fundamentalist school of evangelism in Wales. Read from that what you will. And he really really isn't "as good a representative as any", I have no idea how you could say that he is.

paperclip wrote: »

Anglicanism and Catholicism differ in actually rather massive ways- the difference between Transubstantation and Constansubstantation is huge in a theological sense.

The difference between beamish and guinness is huge to a connoisseur. They're both stout porters though. It's still minor shades of gray in wider scheme of things. For instance, from what little I've read of it, I'd consider the difference between Karaite and Hasidic Judaism a lot more significant.

Personally, I've a bit of a problem with how offhandedly you brush off the entire protestant religion with such defective logic. I'm not protestant myself, and I don't have a problem with criticism that makes sense. I wonder if you look at your own religion with equivalent partiality.

Kwekubo

The results of the draw are up.

Thirdfox

Got mine!

P_1

Sleazus wrote: »

(including the Prime Minister of Burma next Wednesday and the President of Mexico in November), .

That could be controversial!

paperclip

I don't think it's possible to look at your own religion without some degree of bias. Anyone who says they are is lying, in my opinion. Even if you're atheist, you're in some degree influenced by merely living in a society that has been moulded by Christianity for many centuries.

But this is all moot. I got my ticket.