WYB - Franciscan Friars in Moyross...

kelly1

Hello all,

did anyone see Would You Believe last night about the Franciscan Friars in Moyross? I thought it was a good program about how they live and how they're making a positive impact on the community. I really admire what they're doing. They're walking the walk and not just talking the talk.

I definitely think we need more brothers like them to give some guidance and direction for young people. I think there are too many people caught up in a culture that robs us of our dignity as children of God. They need to know that God loves them and that we can have a meaningful relationship with Jesus.

God bless their work!
Noel.

CerebralCortex

Would you agree that any work being done in a community like Moyross should be completely secular? People should be allowed to believe whatever they like regardless of their socioeconomic situation. I know for example that I would have cherished an nonreligious upbringing so I could decide my faith or non faith without any organised influences. While yes I commend their work I'd be happier if there was a group of Buddhist monks in amongst them if you catch my drift. I could tell you a story of a guy I met from near that part of Limerick and his experiences with the RCC but I won't, the lesson I learned from it was that its not fair to be raised or influenced by any organisation with an agenda which I'd confidently say these guys have.

Fanny Cradock

As long as it's within a framework, religious organisations should have as much access to community life as secular organisations.

Aside from this, you seem to make a few assumptions and unfairly make some negative associations in your post.

Firstly, that Buddhist monks would be strictly secular. It's my understanding of Buddhism (and Asiaprod will hopefully pipe in if I'm incorrect) that it isn't necessarily atheistic. I certain that there are a few hard-line atheists that would simply love to see Buddhism meet the chopping block of modern atheistic 'enlightenment' and rationality.

Secondly, based on anecdotal experience, you seem to assume that an organisation like the RCC is primarily harmful (yet at the same time you commend their work), where as a secular organisation isn't. I'm not Catholic - and happily so - but your post is grossly unfair in this regard.

Thirdly, you again somewhat contradict yourself when you say that it is unfair to be raised by an organisation with any agenda but previously proposed the notion that Buddhist monks should have a role to play.

Tell me, considering you do not believe it appropriate for an organisation to raise or even influence a person (one assumes that you believe that the net result is harmful), would you say the same of a secular organisation which also has an agenda? I wonder how not influencing children would work in practice? I'd imagine locking them in a box until 18 would be the best solution.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Would you agree that any work being done in a community like Moyross should be completely secular?

No I don't agree at all! These people need God, they need hope and meaning. Would you deny them that? Have you got something better to offer??

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I could tell you a story of a guy I met from near that part of Limerick and his experiences with the RCC but I won't, the lesson I learned from it was that its not fair to be raised or influenced by any organisation with an agenda which I'd confidently say these guys have.

Their agenda is to unashamedly bring Christ to people in need. What's your agenda?

I was hoping to have a positive thread, but you couldn't resist, could you?

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As long as it's within a framework, religious organisations should have as much access to community life as secular organisations.

I agree.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Aside from this, you seem to make a few assumptions and unfairly make some negative associations in your post.

Firstly, that Buddhist monks would be strictly secular. It's my understanding of Buddhism (and Asiaprod will hopefully pipe in if I'm incorrect) that it isn't necessarily atheistic. I certain that there are a few hard-line atheists that would simply love to see Buddhism meet the chopping block of modern atheistic 'enlightenment' and rationality.

I wonder who is making assumptions now. I never said I considered Buddhist monks strictly secular, I guess I used an unfortunate example. What I was trying to say is that if there was RCC monks then all other religions should be equally represented or none at all.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Secondly, based on anecdotal experience, you seem to assume that an organisation like the RCC is primarily harmful (yet at the same time you commend their work), where as a secular organisation isn't. I'm not Catholic - and happily so - but your post is grossly unfair in this regard.

I commend anyone who is involved in the betterment of a society such as that part of Limerick city. I could be wrong and openly admit it, but I thought there was plenty of evidence of how harmful the RCC can be.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thirdly, you again somewhat contradict yourself when you say that it is unfair to be raised by an organisation with any agenda but previously proposed the notion that Buddhist monks should have a role to play.

Again a poor choice of words on my part.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tell me, considering you do not believe it appropriate for an organisation to raise or even influence a person (one assumes that you believe that the net result is harmful), would you say the same of a secular organisation which also has an agenda? I wonder how not influencing children would work in practice? I'd imagine locking them in a box until 18 would be the best solution.

Thats not fair FC I never suggested influencing young people was a bad thing. Hooking disadvantaged, under-educated youths into your organisation by telling them you know the truth of existence is. They're there imho to recruit and thats fine but not comendable and dishonourable.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What I was trying to say is that if there was RCC monks then all other religions should be equally represented or none at all.

This ranks as one of the most amazing posts I have ever seen on boards.ie

So, if the Franciscans want to go and help people in a deprived area of Limerick then they should refrain from doing so unless then can persuade some Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Pentecostals, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews etc. to accompany them?

I'm speechless!

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

No I don't agree at all! These people need God, they need hope and meaning. Would you deny them that? Have you got something better to offer??

Kelly1 in case you forgot I don't believe any gods exist. I wouldn't be denying them anything. They may need religion as much as they need a smoke to calm their nerves. What I would hope to offer them is tangible options instead of saying "ya your life for you and your kids is sh!t but don't worry the next one will be better just spend your time on your knees and you'll be fine".

kelly1 wrote: »

Their agenda is to unashamedly bring Christ to people in need. What's your agenda?

To enable people regardless of creed.

kelly1 wrote: »

I was hoping to have a positive thread, but you couldn't resist, could you?

Thats unfair finger pointing Kelly1 I asked an honest question.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

This ranks as one of the most amazing posts I have ever seen on boards.ie

So, if the Franciscans want to go and help people in a deprived area of Limerick then they should refrain from doing so unless then can persuade some Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Pentecostals, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews etc. to accompany them?

I'm speechless!

Thanks.

Ya in fairness I made a big assumption there that they would also be spreading the "word of god" too. But if all they wanted to do is help them without making their religion an issue or part of the deal then I'd be less inclined to be critical.

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote: »

This ranks as one of the most amazing posts I have ever seen on boards.ie

So, if the Franciscans want to go and help people in a deprived area of Limerick then they should refrain from doing so unless then can persuade some Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Pentecostals, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews etc. to accompany them?

I'm speechless!

You forgot Muslims, animists and wiccans.

I was reading recently that there are over 35,000 Christian denominations world wide. :eek:

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You forgot Muslims, animists and wiccans.

I was reading recently that there are over 35,000 Christian denominations world wide. :eek:

Such an influx into Moy Ross, all buying food etc, could dig Ireland out of a recession single-handed!

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I could be wrong and openly admit it, but I thought there was plenty of evidence of how harmful the RCC can be.

It's not the Church that's harmful CC. It's those few members who commit evil that are harmful. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the two.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Kelly1 in case you forgot I don't believe any gods exist. I wouldn't be denying them anything. They may need religion as much as they need a smoke to calm their nerves. What I would hope to offer them is tangible options instead of saying "ya your life for you and your kids is sh!t but don't worry the next one will be better just spend your time on your knees and you'll be fine".

Again, you're showing complete ignorance of religion. It's not just about a promise of a better life to come. It's about walking in the light of Christ which makes daily life far happier and lighter despite the difficulties that the world throws at us.

There's only so much that secular organizations can achieve. Nobody can give the peace that comes from following Christ. Why don't you try it sometime?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Again, you're showing complete ignorance of religion.

Are you baiting me Kelly1? I'm actually quite offended that you think I'm ignorant of religion or ignorant full stop. Have a read of this there is plenty in there to show better than I can how ignorant the religious can be of their own religion (not suggesting you are).

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not just about a promise of a better life to come. It's about walking in the light of Christ which makes daily life far happier and lighter despite the difficulties that the world throws at us.

I know how I'd like to respond to that but I doubt I'd make any friends in here if I did.

kelly1 wrote: »

There's only so much that secular organizations can achieve. Nobody can give the peace that comes from following Christ.

Thats quite a bold statement Kelly1 you think I would stand up to scientific scrutiny?

kelly1 wrote: »

Why don't you try it sometime?

What makes you think I haven't? There is only one being that can make you happy and its yourself whatever method you use.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Are you baiting me Kelly1? I'm actually quite offended that you think I'm ignorant of religion or ignorant full stop. Have a read of this there is plenty in there to show better than I can how ignorant the religious can be of their own religion (not suggesting you are).

You're offended?? You're the one who write this trite nonsense:

What I would hope to offer them is tangible options instead of saying "ya your life for you and your kids is sh!t but don't worry the next one will be better just spend your time on your knees and you'll be fine".

Do you really believe Christians say these kinds of things? Such a statement would be very partonizing, wouldn't it? Christians are supposed to be hands-on people, not preaching on high from a distance.

Romans 12:15 Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Thats quite a bold statement Kelly1 you think I[t] would stand up to scientific scrutiny?

I presume you mean "it"? Do you think peace can be measured? Science doesn't offer true peace in the soul. Yes it provides solutions to physical problems but can't touch the realm of spirit.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

There is only one being that can make you happy and its yourself whatever method you use.

How wrong you are!

Fanny Cradock

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... and relax.

I don't see this as a topic that breeds antagonism, just crossed wires - wires that happen to be live. Why don't we all just chill out a bit.

kelly1

I'll chill but I get tired of people who never miss a chance to attack the RCC!

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Nobody can give the peace that comes from following Christ.

There are many religions whose believers feel this peace -- it's nothing peculiar to christianity, or your variation of it.

As with muslims, hindus, jews and believers of many other religions, your belief that your deity is beside you/helping you/whatever is what is giving you peace. In other words, you're giving it to yourself, whether or not your deity is actually there.

Fanny Cradock

Billions would disagree, of course.

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

There are many religions whose believers feel this peace -- it's nothing peculiar to christianity, or your variation of it.

As with muslims, hindus, jews and believers of many other religions, your belief that your deity is beside you/helping you/whatever is what is giving you peace. In other words, you're giving it to yourself, whether or not your deity is actually there.

You said what I wanted to say only calmer :pac:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Billions would disagree, of course.

Believe it or not my original question is why Kelly1 believes a secular org doing the same work shouldn't be commended equally like social workers and the like. For the record billions disagree with you everyday too Fanny plus more atheists than you think I hardly see how it has any relevance.

kelly1 wrote: »

How wrong you are!

I not quite sure what I'm meant to take from that Kelly1? As regards the me attacking the RCC well its the biggest and closest I don't play favourites when it comes to religion I have the same views of Islam and would react the same way to you if your were a devout Muslim.

Micky Dolenz

Why do non belivers have to begrudge belivers, regardless of faith, of any happiness that their faith brings them?

On an other point, this country is full of RC. you could nearly say we are a RC country. I would then assume that having RC Brothers would in some way be good for a community as they have already one very importatnt thing in common.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Believe it or not my original question is why Kelly1 believes a secular org doing the same work shouldn't be commended equally like social workers and the like.

There's nothing wrong with secular organization per se as long as they have a genuine concern for the welfare of the people they're supposed to be helping. But why make the comments below except to vent your dislike for the Church?

- Would you agree that any work being done in a community like Moyross should be completely secular?
- I'd be happier if there was a group of Buddhist monks in amongst them if you catch my drift
- I could tell you a story of a guy I met from near that part of Limerick and his experiences with the RCC but I won't
- its not fair to be raised or influenced by any organisation with an agenda which I'd confidently say these guys have.
- What I was trying to say is that if there was RCC monks then all other religions should be equally represented or none at all.
- but I thought there was plenty of evidence of how harmful the RCC can be
- Hooking disadvantaged, under-educated youths into your organisation by telling them you know the truth of existence is
- They're there imho to recruit and thats fine but not comendable and dishonourable.

It clear that you mistrust these friars because they're Catholic. You clearly have a strong anti-catholic bias.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I not quite sure what I'm meant to take from that Kelly1?

What that means is that peace doesn't come from ourselves, it comes from Christ via the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in this world that can satisfy our thirst for happiness except God.

kelly1

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Why do non belivers have to begrudge belivers, regardless of faith, of any happiness that their faith brings them?

Very good question!

Micky Dolenz

kelly1 wrote: »

What that means is that peace doesn't come from ourselves, it comes from Christ via the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in this world that can satisfy our thirst for happiness except God.

Stall the ball sister! You mean "satisfy your thirst for happiness expect God"?

Fanny Cradock

CerebralCortex wrote: »

For the record billions disagree with you everyday too Fanny plus more atheists than you think I hardly see how it has any relevance.

Maybe. But I would certainly challenge the notion that, at its simplest, there would be billions who don't believe in some manner if metaphysical agent(s). However, it was not my intention to enter into a 'mine is bigger than yours' type argument. I was trying to highlight that there is a certain cyclical futility in arguing that 'you're giving it to yourself' when staggering numbers disagree.

Micky Dolenz

The whole point is we should be allowed to belive in what we what no matter what that is.

A few Islamic followers blow up a tube/bus/embassy/train/pub/nightclub/trade centre etc
doesn't mean that Islam is evil, a few RC or COI Clergy men do bad thimngs doesn't mean their faith is flawed, only that they are flawed.

Religion is a very personal thing and can bring with it a hightened enlightment and a real feel good factor. Nobody can knock that and it baffles me that people will try. I agree with kelly but I also see all points and belive we should all take a stance of if you don't try and change me, I won't try and change you

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Billions would disagree, of course.

Well, billions of people sincerely believe what noel has said -- that peace flows from belief. This does not mean that the belief is true, any more than me thinking that I'm happy since I think I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow, means that I actually will win the lottery. Or stay alive after I die, or whatever.

The point is that the happiness is independent of whether or not the belief is true. And since believers of many different religions say that they experience similar happiness, this strongly suggests that the individual religious beliefs, though comforting, are at best, mostly false since they all contradict each other.

Do you believe that people who gain peace from following, say, the false religion of islam aren't really happy?

robindch

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

The whole point is we should be allowed to belive in what we what no matter what that is.

These days, you are allowed to believe what you want.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

A few Islamic followers blow up a tube [...] doesn't mean that Islam is evil, a few RC or COI Clergy men do bad thimngs doesn't mean their faith is flawed, only that they are flawed.

No, if people commit crimes in the name of some ideology, then that ideology is dangerous and needs to be changed or removed. BTW, communists said exactly the same thing about communism -- that the system was perfect, and only people failed. What a truly cold thing to think.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Religion is a very personal thing and can bring with it a hightened enlightment and a real feel good factor.

There are those of us who believe that the world's religions are little more than highly-evolved feel-good factors

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

we should all take a stance of if you don't try and change me, I won't try and change you

That's very reasonable, but religion doesn't respect that rule. I've seen religious propagators in most of the 60 or so countries I've visited and these people are there to insert their ideas into the locals at the expense of what was there at the time. This is cultural destruction on a massive scale and I have yet to see a religion respecting, in any genuine sense, the pre-existing spiritual beliefs of the target population.

CerebralCortex

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Why do non belivers have to begrudge belivers, regardless of faith, of any happiness that their faith brings them?....

Because they may be happier with the truth. Wouldn't you agree? They may be more enabled. I've never experienced any faith that has a basis in fact or truth.

kelly1 wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with secular organization per se as long as they have a genuine concern for the welfare of the people they're supposed to be helping. But why make the comments below except to vent your dislike for the Church?

- Would you agree that any work being done in a community like Moyross should be completely secular?
- I'd be happier if there was a group of Buddhist monks in amongst them if you catch my drift
- I could tell you a story of a guy I met from near that part of Limerick and his experiences with the RCC but I won't
- its not fair to be raised or influenced by any organisation with an agenda which I'd confidently say these guys have.
- What I was trying to say is that if there was RCC monks then all other religions should be equally represented or none at all.
- but I thought there was plenty of evidence of how harmful the RCC can be
- Hooking disadvantaged, under-educated youths into your organisation by telling them you know the truth of existence is
- They're there imho to recruit and thats fine but not comendable and dishonourable.

It clear that you mistrust these friars because they're Catholic. You clearly have a strong anti-catholic bias.

No you're completely wrong, I have a strong anti-religion bias full stop. As I said earlier the catholic church has the misfortune of being the closest one to me, one in which I had no choice but to be raised in, that is against my will. So please forgive me but I have a right to freedom of speech do I not?

kelly1 wrote: »

What that means is that peace doesn't come from ourselves, it comes from Christ via the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in this world that can satisfy our thirst for happiness except God.

So if I tell you right now I feel happy I'm lying to you and myself?

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Because they may be happier with the truth. Wouldn't you agree? They may be more enabled. I've never experienced any faith that has a basis in fact or truth.

That's only your experience. You assume that the truth is that God doesn't exist and the believers are just fooling themselves. Why can't you accept that people have strong reasons for believing in God and that it's not just a feel-good factor or a crutch. That's your presumption.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No you're completely wrong, I have a strong anti-religion bias full stop. As I said earlier the catholic church has the misfortune of being the closest one to me, one in which I had no choice but to be raised in, that is against my will. So please forgive me but I have a right to freedom of speech do I not?

Why are you anti-religion? Do you know for a fact that God doesn't exist? If you somehow knew that, I could understand your position. But the fact is you don't know. Why does it bother you that so many people have faith in God and find consolation/happiness/peace/good in loving Him? You don't know the marvellous things that happen in the souls of others so why judge them by your standards?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So if I tell you right now I feel happy I'm lying to you and myself?

To be honest, you don't sound very happy. Bitter is the word I'd use. Sorry.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

That's only your experience. You assume that the truth is that God doesn't exist and the believers are just fooling themselves.

So whose experience is the correct one?

kelly1 wrote: »

Why can't you accept that people have strong reasons for believing in God and that it's not just a feel-good factor or a crutch. That's your presumption.

I can accept the importance in the belief in belief.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why are you anti-religion?

Do you really need to ask that question of me?

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you know for a fact that God doesn't exist? If you somehow knew that, I could understand your position. But the fact is you don't know...

...and you do? You've yet to provide some concrete evidence were of course much greater men than you and I have failed.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why does it bother you that so many people have faith in God and find consolation/happiness/peace/good in loving Him? You don't know the marvellous things that happen in the souls of others so why judge them by your standards?

I'm tired of answering those questions over and over again.

kelly1 wrote: »

To be honest, you don't sound very happy. Bitter is the word I'd use. Sorry.

Well when you get told all the time that you can't be happy without someone else's set of rules it kind of grinds on you (spare me your religious response if you do though I will consider it trolling and I will report the post). I don't think you are sincerely sorry. I'm sorry that I've gotten into another one of these pointless debates with you Kelly1 I really should know better. I sincerely apologise for getting involved in this thread Kelly1 and I hope it carries on without my involvement.

kelly1

So, did anyone actually see the WYB program?

BrianCalgary

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So please forgive me but I have a right to freedom of speech do I not?
?

You do. But don't forget that you have a responsibility to use that freedom correctly.

I'm also sure that if a group of buddhist monks wished to set up a poverty relief or community service of some sort that they'd be more than welcome to do so.

Interesting though to note that in a city like Calgary that is represented by many faiths and religions that the only groups thatstart such endeavours are Christian.

I dont see any atheist groups helping the homeless. I dont see Muslim congregations nor scientology groups nor Buddhist groups lifting a finger to help any of the disadvantaged, I honestly wonder why?

Is there something within the teachings that don't make it a priority?

Fanny Cradock

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So please forgive me but I have a right to freedom of speech do I not?

Of course you do, but only if I approve it before hand or directly tell you what to say.

Splendour

kelly1 wrote: »

So, did anyone actually see the WYB program?

Hi Noel,

I watched WYB and was totally inspired by those monks. If I didn't have kids to look after I think I'd be on the next train to Limerick! They are literally are doing the work of Christ in both their prayer and action. Ireland needs more people who are so dedicated to god's work.

(Only bit I disagreed with was them praying the Hail Mary-apart from that, wonderful guys...)

kelly1

Splendour wrote: »

Hi Noel,

I watched WYB and was totally inspired by those monks. If I didn't have kids to look after I think I'd be on the next train to Limerick! They are literally are doing the work of Christ in both their prayer and action. Ireland needs more people who are so dedicated to god's work.

I agree, I wish I could bring lost souls to Christ in the same way they do.

Splendour wrote: »

(Only bit I disagreed with was them praying the Hail Mary-apart from that, wonderful guys...)

I'll don't understand this objection. It's straight from the Gospel:-

Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
......
42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
.....
48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

As regards saying Mary is the Mother of God, of course she's not the mother of His divinity but Christ is one person with two natures, human and divine. And Jesus is God... But that's another debate

See http://www.rosary-center.org/ll61n2.htm

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I agree, I wish I could bring lost souls to Christ in the same way they do.

This made me curious as whether these guys set up in wealthy areas where souls may be lost?

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

This made me curious as whether these guys set up in wealthy areas where souls may be lost?

I assume they're more concerned for the poor and disadvantaged. Or are you concerned that they have setup in a disadvantaged area because the poor are more likely to listen to their message and be brain-washed/corrupted?

BrianCalgary

CerebralCortex wrote: »

This made me curious as whether these guys set up in wealthy areas where souls may be lost?

These particular monks have been called by God to do the work they are doing. I know many ministers who have been called to work with the wealthy to bring the word of God to that socio-economic group.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I assume they're more concerned for the poor and disadvantaged. Or are you concerned that they have setup in a disadvantaged area because the poor are more likely to listen to their message and be brain-washed/corrupted?

Yes I must admit I am teetering dangerously close to being inflammatory. But I think their motives should be open to all forms of scrutiny.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes I must admit I am teetering dangerously close to being inflammatory. But I think their motives should be open to all forms of scrutiny.

What motives you have in mind? Why are you so suspicious of them?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

What motives you have in mind? Why are you so suspicious of them?

I don't think they even consider a motive these guys have to be pretty strong believers to even be monks. Look I can see where this is going, you pretty much already know my answers to the above questions unless however improbable I became a monk myself in the last hour

Micky Dolenz

kelly1 wrote: »

I agree, I wish I could bring lost souls to Christ in the same way they do.


See http://www.rosary-center.org/ll61n2.htm

There is no doubt you could and probably do with the people you interact with.