God damages Lourdes shrine causing hundreds of thousands of euro's of damage

joseph brand

Robin: "Holy water Batman!"
Caped Crusader: "To the Batcave, . . . . aww sh*t, it's flooded."


I'm sure they can easily gather up the money needed, through sales of 'holy' water and 'holy' silt.

God damn it. :pac:

joseph brand

MrPudding wrote: »

I did ask on another forum, which I shall not name, if it was an act of god. Have not received an answer a post was deleted.

MrP

I wonder if that's the forum in which my posts seem to dissolve without a trace, save for the apologies to any fragile minds present.

It's all water under (and over) the bridge.

MrPudding

joseph brand wrote: »

Robin: "Holy water Batman!"
Caped Crusader: "To the Batcave, . . . . aww sh*t, it's flooded."


I'm sure they can easily gather up the money needed, through sales of 'holy' water and 'holy' silt.

God damn it. :pac:

I want to be there when they are having the inevitable conversation with the insurers.

Church - we need the insurance pay-out really fast. We are losing a fricking fortune over here and need to get the themepark back up and running. All that gold and sh1t doesn't pay for itself you know.

Insurer - I um, ah, well ... You see, we are going to go ahead and not pay out I'm afraid.

Church - What! This is an outrage! We had an agreement. We paid the premiums and you promised to pay out should there be damage. I can't believe an organisation would agree to make payments for something and then not pay. An outrage I tell you.

Insurer - Well, the thing is, there are clauses in the insurance. And as a result you are not entitled to payment in this particular case. Please rest assured we do appreciate your business and hope you will consider us for your future insurance needs. Though not sex abuse insurance, you understand. No money for us there.

Church - Hold on. What clause.

Insurer - Um. You know the one.

Church - Which one!

Insurer - Ah, act of god?

Would be awesome.

MrP

feargale

Spare a thought for the old lady who died in the flooding,

ardmacha

A thread in what is supposed to be a serious forum full of people enjoying damage done elsewhere in a flood is truly sad.
Pretty much the kind of mindless sh|t you probably think you are making fun of.

martingriff

So let me get this a town is flooded which just happens to have a holy place and its okay to make fun of it. Do we know how bad the town is flooded and the damages to peoples property. Do we care or is this just a way to get a cheap pop (as there are more valid reasons) on religion.

Insect Overlord

ardmacha wrote: »

A thread in what is supposed to be a serious forum full of people enjoying damage done elsewhere in a flood is truly sad.
Pretty much the kind of mindless sh|t you probably think you are making fun of.

And yet you keep coming back for more.

joseph brand

ardmacha wrote: »

A thread in what is supposed to be a serious forum full of people enjoying damage done elsewhere in a flood is truly sad.
Pretty much the kind of mindless sh|t you probably think you are making fun of.

martingriff wrote: »

So let me get this a town is flooded which just happens to have a holy place and its okay to make fun of it. Do we know how bad the town is flooded and the damages to peoples property. Do we care or is this just a way to get a cheap pop (as there are more valid reasons) on religion.

From the OP's link to the BBC article, there was no mention of any injuries or deaths, just flood damage. Considering the vast wealth of the church, this is a minor setback.

I'm just not sure whether I should feel sorry for any of the suckers faithful, who hand money over fist to go on these pilgrimages seeking divine intervention and miracle cures. I would say 'each to their own', if they weren't out protesting against the rights of women and the LGBT community, amongst other reasons.

martingriff

joseph brand wrote: »

From the OP's link to the BBC article, there was no mention of any injuries or deaths, just flood damage. Considering the vast wealth of the church, this is a minor setback.

I'm just not sure whether I should feel sorry for any of the suckers faithful, who hand money over fist to go on these pilgrimages seeking divine intervention and miracle cures. I would say 'each to their own', if they weren't out protesting against the rights of women and the LGBT community, amongst other reasons.

My point was not about religion as I said there is a lot of valid reasons to have threads about religion you stated two and I agree with you. My point was that this was not why this thread was set up. It was set up in my opinion just as a cheap pop at religion as there was a flood in a "religious place".

I have had some great debates in this forum about religion and this just seems like a low that some one had to resort as something like this to start a thread. I am saying you have to feel sorry they go looking a a miracle or whatever but how about some compassion (I hear non religious people have it) for them. Or have you such a hatred for people who have beliefs (you call them suckers) that you can't show some.

robindch

martingriff wrote: »

Do we care or is this just a way to get a cheap pop [...] on religion.

Over the years, this forum has pointed out repeatedly that Lourdes is a sham, and an abusive and a lethal one at that.

While I do see a few posters poking some much-needed fun at the charlatans who oversee this dreadful enterprise, I see nobody having a cheap go at the people who have suffered genuine loss or been genuinely injured, or indeed, at the two unfortunate people who lost their lives.

If you have specific issues with specific points that people have made, then address them directly and try to avoid claiming that many people hold beliefs held by nobody that I can immediately see.

martingriff

robindch wrote: »

Over the years, this forum has pointed out repeatedly that Lourdes is a sham, and an abusive and a lethal one at that.

While I do see a few posters poking some much-needed fun at the charlatans who oversee this dreadful enterprise, I see nobody having a cheap go at the people who have suffered genuine loss or been genuinely injured, or indeed, at the two unfortunate people who lost their lives.

If you have specific issues with specific points that people have made, then address them directly and try to avoid claiming that many people hold beliefs held by nobody that I can immediately see.

My last text was replying to a comment that was all. My point and I think is valid is yes by all means you can have threads about Lourdes however to me it seems this thread was started because of a flood with a title "God damages lourdes". I have no problem with thread about the hazards of religion and such but this thread just seemed to be crass to the extreme. Can someone not have an opinion about a reason for a thread

martingriff

MrPudding wrote: »

I did ask on another forum, which I shall not name, if it was an act of god. Have not received an answer a post was deleted.

MrP

Just wondering why you would have to go over that other forum and ask the question

MrPudding

martingriff wrote: »

Just wondering why you would have to go over that other forum and ask the question

Put simply, I don't believe in god, I am therefore unsure if it was him. Generally when I lack the expertise in something I ask people that are supposed to know.

MrP

martingriff

MrPudding wrote: »

Put simply, I don't believe in god, I am therefore unsure if it was him. Generally when I lack the expertise in something I ask people that are supposed to know.

MrP

cool

robindch

martingriff wrote: »

[...] this thread just seemed to be crass to the extreme.

I don't quite see why -- posters appear to be criticizing the people who use Lourdes to make money, and that criticism seems fair to me. Some are also pointing out the hypocrisy of religious believers who heap praise upon their deity when they're "cured" at Lourdes, yet who won't utter a peep when the same deity supposedly floods the place. That's mildly dishonest and I don't think people are outside the bounds of good taste to point that out.

martingriff wrote: »

Can someone not have an opinion about a reason for a thread

Any poster can post pretty much any opinion they wish. However, if the poster won't back up the opinion with any facts -- in this case, a direction quotation of a few items you find "crass in the extreme" would be good -- then other posters are free to decide that your opinion isn't based upon facts.

looksee

There have been some questions that are very valid to people who post in here, if it seems 'crass in the extreme' to you then you shouldn't be in here as you are inevitably going to be offended.

No-one among the few 'pro-lourdes/religion' people who have answered have come up with any sensible answers beyond 'you have to believe'. Most people in here don't 'believe', so why should they pretend they do just to appease the religious types? We have enough of that kind of nonsense listening to neighbours and other people we meet in the normal course of events who call down blessings etc and expect us to go along with them. Which for the most part we do so not to upset people.

martingriff

looksee wrote: »

There have been some questions that are very valid to people who post in here, if it seems 'crass in the extreme' to you then you shouldn't be in here as you are inevitably going to be offended.

No-one among the few 'pro-lourdes/religion' people who have answered have come up with any sensible answers beyond 'you have to believe'. Most people in here don't 'believe', so why should they pretend they do just to appease the religious types? We have enough of that kind of nonsense listening to neighbours and other people we meet in the normal course of events who call down blessings etc and expect us to go along with them. Which for the most part we do so not to upset people.

Who said anything well on this thread you have to believe

endacl

martingriff wrote: »

Who said anything well on this thread you have to believe

Heh?

recedite

Patser wrote: »

We'll know when the cave is emptied of water and it doesn't collapse. Simple test of your theory there.

But what if He is busy repairing the structure of the cave right now, and then when the water recedes, it should "stay up" by itself.
At that point He will high-five nearby adoring angels, and then they all go for a pint..

onlinenerd

seamus wrote: »

God could have created you as a robot doing good things instead.

Doctor DooM

onlinenerd wrote: »

God could have created you as a robot doing good things instead.

Or he could of actually given us free will. Without threats and all.

If he existed.

crazy cabbage

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Bad stuff = **** happens
Good stuff = god's work

This actully got me thinking. I used to have a teacher that used to say that if anyone did something bad they were possessed by the devil. Even if only for a few mins.

Does that not mean that if someone does something good that they are possessed too only by 'god'.

If the first holds true then does that not imply the second?

either way everyone is possessed so can't be held account for anything that one does.

seamus

onlinenerd wrote: »

God could have created you as a robot doing good things instead.

Of course, it begs another question.

If everything God does is good by definition, i.e. butchering millions of people is good when God does it, then the creation of man was a good act. It then logically follows that every act of man is by extension a result of that good godly act. Which makes it logically impossible for man to sin unless you're willing to admit that God made a mistake, and the creation of man was in fact not a wholly good thing.

That is, if sin is result of free will, then it's God's fault for giving man free will in the first place.

robindch

seamus wrote: »

That is, if sin is result of free will, then it's God's fault for giving man free will in the first place.

You're just showing how fallible logic is!

onlinenerd

seamus wrote: »

Of course, it begs another question.

If everything God does is good by definition, i.e. butchering millions of people is good when God does it, then the creation of man was a good act. It then logically follows that every act of man is by extension a result of that good godly act. Which makes it logically impossible for man to sin unless you're willing to admit that God made a mistake, and the creation of man was in fact not a wholly good thing.

That is, if sin is result of free will, then it's God's fault for giving man free will in the first place.

God like any loving father has given you freedom of choice but if you misuse the freedom by violating the laws established by him you will be punished like a parent.

Corkfeen

onlinenerd wrote: »

God like any loving father has given you freedom of choice but if you misuse the freedom by violating the laws established by him you will be punished like a parent.

But some of his laws are rather silly and make little to no sense. In fact, they just seem to reflect bigotries of the time when they were written..... So god is like a homophobic dad? Highly irrational and obsessed with the fact that he thinks he right on all subjects.......

seamus

onlinenerd wrote: »

God like any loving father has given you freedom of choice but if you misuse the freedom by violating the laws established by him you will be punished like a parent.

Therefore:

a) God made a mistake by giving man free will, or
b) God has made a mistake in his rules, or
c) God enjoys punishing people

There exists a universe where God could have given man free will, without the possibility that any of his laws could be violated.

If God is not able to do this, then he is not God. If he can do this, but chose not to, then the only logical conclusion is that God enjoys punishing humanity more than he enjoys rewarding them.

Btw, what you describe isn't punishment, it's revenge. The purpose of punishment is to try and correct behaviour. By storing up a person's sins until the end of their life and then punishing them for it, there is no opportunity for a person to redeem themselves. Storing up sins and then punishing the person with no possibility of redemption. Yes, that's revenge.

Pretty petty is your God, isn't he?

onlinenerd

seamus wrote: »

Therefore:

a) God made a mistake by giving man free will, or
b) God has made a mistake in his rules, or
c) God enjoys punishing people

There exists a universe where God could have given man free will, without the possibility that any of his laws could be violated.

If God is not able to do this, then he is not God. If he can do this, but chose not to, then the only logical conclusion is that God enjoys punishing humanity more than he enjoys rewarding them.

Btw, what you describe isn't punishment, it's revenge. The purpose of punishment is to try and correct behaviour. By storing up a person's sins until the end of their life and then punishing them for it, there is no opportunity for a person to redeem themselves. Storing up sins and then punishing the person with no possibility of redemption. Yes, that's revenge.

Pretty petty is your God, isn't he?

God never makes mistakes because hell is a form of eternal punishment because Mary said in the Fatima apparitions that Wars are punishment from God for the sins of mankind. If you have not repented from your sins even then the God like a father is going to disown you and remove you from his house. DONT SIN if you want to avoid punishment.

God never never damns anyone to hell but humans themselves because of their actions. satan makes people to commit sin and so return to God through reconciliation.

krudler

onlinenerd wrote: »

God never makes mistakes because hell is a form of eternal punishment because Mary said in the Fatima apparitions that Wars are punishment from God for the sins of mankind. If you have not repented from your sins even then the God like a father is going to disown you and remove you from his house. DONT SIN if you want to avoid punishment.

God never never damns anyone to hell but humans themselves because of their actions. satan makes people to commit sin and so return to God through reconciliation.

So...Satan makes people do bad things to get closer to God? why does he get such a bad rap then? Seems like he's actually the hard work.

kylith

krudler wrote: »

So...Satan makes people do bad things to get closer to God? why does he get such a bad rap then? Seems like he's actually the hard work.

Satan is absolutely in God's employ. What other reason could he have for punishing sinners? If he was actually evil he'd be rewarding people for sinning rather than punishing them.

This whole God Vs Satan thing is just PR. There will be no final Seraphim/Demon battle. Satan is doing exactly what God wants him to. When Satan tempt people to do evil, that is what God wants. God wants people to sin so that he can get Satan to punish them.