Angelus

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

I do hope you're not suggesting something untoward about the Jedi order, moving Knights from one planet to another for reasons that are never quite explained..
'Use the Force, Luke! Like I showed you with the puppets...force it...'
(If you haven't watched the Family Guy Star Wars parodies, do so now!)

Given what you read into the Obi Wan lines I can see why you'd imagine the suggestion alright... but I'm afraid it's not me.. it's you

Fleawuss

It is laughable that we are supposed to pause to reflect on an angel telling a middle eastern virgin that she was going to be impregnated by god the spirit do she could give birth to god the son so he could be offered as a sacrifice to god the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity which had offended god who is made of god the father son and spirit in one being.

Maybe this should be added as subtitles to the angelus so people would pause and say "wtf?"

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

It is laughable that we are supposed to pause to reflect on an angel telling a middle eastern virgin that she was going to be impregnated by god the spirit do she could give birth to god the son so he could be offered as a sacrifice to god the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity which had offended god who is made of god the father son and spirit in one being.
Maybe this should be added as subtitles to the angelus so people would pause and say "wtf?"

Are we supposed to pause and reflect on this? Just as well you're here to tell us; RTEs' notion of presenting it more as a secular "moment of reflection" would lead us well astray of what we're supposed to do. Still, even if we are supposed to, I don't suppose we have to. I think I'll just continue to reflect on whatever is shiny and nearby whenever I'm around for it, if that's ok.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

Are we supposed to pause and reflect on this? Just as well you're here to tell us; RTEs' notion of presenting it more as a secular "moment of reflection" would lead us well astray of what we're supposed to do. Still, even if we are supposed to, I don't suppose we have to. I think I'll just continue to reflect on whatever is shiny and nearby whenever I'm around for it, if that's ok.

"The Angelus (/ˈændʒələs/; Latin for "angel") is a Catholic devotion commemorating the Incarnation. As with many Catholic prayers, the name Angelus is derived from its incipit: Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariæ ("... the Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary ...") and is practised by reciting as versicle and response three Biblical verses narrating the mystery; alternating with the prayer "Hail Mary". The Angelus exemplifies a species of prayers called the "prayer of the devotee".[1]"
Wikipedia. Probably not a kosher enough source. Why not have interfaith communality among the children of Abraham old boy.


"Although the Angelus has been traditionally said three times daily, at 6 am, noon and 6 pm, you can pray it at anytime! It is still accompanied by the ringing of a bell (the Angelus bell) in some places such as Vatican City and parts of Germany and Ireland. The Regina Coeli prayer (which may also be sung as a hymn) replaces the Angelus during the Easter season.


The Angelus reminds us of the Annunciation (shown in this famous rendition at left by Fra Angelico), when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary with great, (if somewhat startling), news! As we read in Chapter One of Luke’s Gospel, (Luke 1:26-38) God wished Mary, truly a model of humility, to be the mother of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ!

His desire for her brings to mind the line from Matthew’s gospel: “Whoever humbles himself shall be exalted” (Matt 23:12)."
That would be our Catholic prayers website.

Amazing how easy it is to fill up a page here!

But my own favourite which sums up the weaseling away from admitting the RC dogma around the angelus and the purpose of the angelus is this:

"No mention of god. They keep him up their sleeve for as long as they can, vicars do. They know it puts people off. "

Ah yes. Dong. Dong. Dong.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

"The Angelus <..> be exalted” (Matt 23:12)."
That would be our Catholic prayers website.
Amazing how easy it is to fill up a page here!
But my own favourite which sums up the weaseling away from admitting the RC dogma around the angelus and the purpose of the angelus is this:
"No mention of god. They keep him up their sleeve for as long as they can, vicars do. They know it puts people off. "
Ah yes. Dong. Dong. Dong.

That's great. But what I was asking was, are we supposed to pause and reflect on an angel telling a middle eastern virgin that she was going to be impregnated by god the spirit do she could give birth to god the son so he could be offered as a sacrifice to god the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity which had offended god who is made of god the father son and spirit in one being? You seem to be a little at odds with RTEs thoughts on the subject. Still, even if we are supposed to, I don't suppose we have to.

But thanks for cutting and pasting what the Angelus is; after eleven pages of discussion I bet there were loads of people waiting to find out.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

That's great. But what I was asking was, are we supposed to pause and reflect on an angel telling a middle eastern virgin that she was going to be impregnated by god the spirit do she could give birth to god the son so he could be offered as a sacrifice to god the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity which had offended god who is made of god the father son and spirit in one being? You seem to be a little at odds with RTEs thoughts on the subject. Still, even if we are supposed to, I don't suppose we have to.

But thanks for cutting and pasting what the Angelus is; after eleven pages of discussion I bet there were loads of people waiting to find out.

Clarity is always good. Assuming you're a practicing RC when you hear the 18 dongs you are meant to pause and reflect on an angel telling a middle eastern virgin that she was going to be impregnated by god the spirit do she could give birth to god the son so he could be offered as a sacrifice to god the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity which had offended god who is made of god the father son and spirit in one being. The DONG has been retained by RTE: you have one stimulus for your reflection to pause and reflect on an angel telling a middle eastern virgin that she was going to be impregnated by god the spirit do she could give birth to god the son so he could be offered as a sacrifice to god the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity which had offended god who is made of god the father son and spirit in one being.

Have a dong.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

Clarity is always good. Assuming you're a practicing RC when you hear the 18 dongs you are meant to pause and reflect on an angel telling a middle eastern virgin that she was going to be impregnated by god the spirit do she could give birth to god the son so he could be offered as a sacrifice to god the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity which had offended god who is made of god the father son and spirit in one being.

Entertaining as your peculiar perspective on Christian theology is, I still don't think you're addressing the actual question; are we supposed to pause and reflect on your notion? As I said, RTEs idea of presenting it more as a secular "moment of reflection" wouldn't lead me to what you seem to think we should be reflecting on. And I don't think most Christians views of the Angelus would lead them to reflect on your particular perspective either....

Fleawuss wrote: »

The DONG has been retained by RTE: you have one stimulus for your reflection to pause and reflect on an angel telling a middle eastern virgin that she was going to be impregnated by god the spirit do she could give birth to god the son so he could be offered as a sacrifice to god the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity which had offended god who is made of god the father son and spirit in one being. Have a dong.

It doesn't really sound any better with repetition, does it? I think you're going to be stuck reflecting on your own when the dong comes around... I can't see that particular variation on reflection acquiring too many converts from the Christians or anyone else to be honest.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

Entertaining as your peculiar perspective on Christian theology is, I still don't think you're addressing the actual question; are we supposed to pause and reflect on your notion? As I said, RTEs idea of presenting it more as a secular "moment of reflection" wouldn't lead me to what you seem to think we should be reflecting on. And I don't think most Christians views of the Angelus would lead them to reflect on your particular perspective either....
It doesn't really sound any better with repetition, does it? I think you're going to be stuck reflecting on your own when the dong comes around... I can't see that particular variation on reflection acquiring too many converts from the Christians or anyone else to be honest.

My "notion"? LOL. I have given you a wonderful synopsis of Christian theology linking the annunciation, incarnation, atonement and resurrection and you dismiss it as "peculiar"?!

You are quite right that it ie Christian theology "doesn't sound any better with repetition"! All the more reason to repeat it. I'm hopeful that at least you, having come this far in recognizing the peculiarity of Christian theology and its increasingly obvious deficiencies through repetition, will be my first convert.

So, I will supply another stimulus even though it seems a little Pavlovian: dong.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

My "notion"? LOL. I have given you a wonderful synopsis of Christian theology linking the annunciation, incarnation, atonement and resurrection and you dismiss it as "peculiar"?!

I can't help thinking the 'wonderful synopis' is a tad too much self praise.. not least because you're not likely to find a Christian theologian who'd agree it even approaches similarity to a synopsis of Christian theology. Still, you seem pleased with it, and I suspect that's what's important to you.

Fleawuss wrote: »

You are quite right that it ie Christian theology "doesn't sound any better with repetition"! All the more reason to repeat it. I'm hopeful that at least you, having come this far in recognizing the peculiarity of Christian theology and its increasingly obvious deficiencies through repetition, will be my first convert. So, I will supply another stimulus even though it seems a little Pavlovian: dong.

Bit off on the 'ie' there, but we both know I was referring to your own 'synopsis' rather than anything with a modicum of literary value. Or even value Good luck with your pavlovian reflection; it seems there's at least one person pleased to see you repeating yourself anyway.

robdonn

Stop waving your dongs around in public!

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/wesley-boyd-rte-fails-to-grasp-the-angelus-nettle-once-again-1.2407653

Noel Curran, who has announced that he is standing down as director general of RTÉ, after a stressful but successful five-year run, has failed to grasp the sensitive nettle of the Angelus.

Instead he has approved a wishy-washy new television version which is trying hard to make the Angelus not the Angelus. The chimes will also continue to be heard on RTÉ Radio 1.

He is not the first director general to shirk the issue. I served as a member of RTÉ’s board of management, under no fewer than six directors general while I was director of news from 1974 to 1990.

On a number of occasions at board meetings I questioned whether the broadcasting of the Angelus, a Catholic call to prayer, was in conformity with the Broadcasting Act’s terms and spirit and relevant to a modern, secular Irish society.

The answers, even from those around the table who professed to be agnostic or liberal-minded, were always the same: it was more trouble than it was worth to remove it; it was only a time signal to remind people that the news was on the way; none of the Protestant churches objected to it; it did no harm; it was a comfort to old people; it gave people time to reflect; and so on and so on.

None of which are good enough reasons,
If RTE tomorrow started to air a Muslim call to prayer each day at the tax payer expense they'd be uproar

lazybones32

Do you think the money spent by RTE on the Angelus will be rebated to the taxpayer? We might get an extra 5 cent 'windfall' every few years - now that the 1's and 2's are gone.

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

Do you think the money spent by RTE on the Angelus will be rebated to the taxpayer? We might get an extra 5 cent 'windfall' every few years - now that the 1's and 2's are gone.

Of course not,
Do i think that they could simply resolve this issue by changing the name of the programme and removing the bells and actually making the programme inclusive to all faiths and none....yes of course

lazybones32

The Angelus is a service provided by RTE specifically for the Catholics who tune in to their station - it is of no use to any other group. Why do you want to compromise the service provided to others just because you're not part of that group? (I think I know your motivation but at least don't try hide behind the 'other people are being excluded' facade)
If you are 'upset' because one group are receiving privileged position and attention, would you not be happy to have a blended theist/atheist minute of reflection before the nine o clock news? Or just become a Catholic and the Angelus won't annoy you.

If you want to pitch a few ideas for a "religion-free minute of reflection" to me, I'd be glad to hear them.

Pherekydes

lazybones32 wrote: »

Or just become a Catholic and the Angelus won't annoy you.

A hahahaha. I hated the Angelus as a brainwashed (Catholic) child. Standing up to say it, usually in the middle of dinner. A right pain in the arse.

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

The Angelus is a service provided by RTE specifically for the Catholics who tune in to their station - it is of no use to any other group. Why do you want to compromise the service provided to others just because you're not part of that group? (I think I know your motivation but at least don't try hide behind the 'other people are being excluded' facade)
If you are 'upset' because one group are receiving privileged position and attention, would you not be happy to have a blended theist/atheist minute of reflection before the nine o clock news? Or just become a Catholic and the Angelus won't annoy you.

If you want to pitch a few ideas for a "religion-free minute of reflection" to me, I'd be glad to hear them.

lol, you fail at this :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

lazybones32 wrote: »

The Angelus is a service provided by RTE specifically for the Catholics who tune in to their station

Catholics who don't live within earshot of any church and don't have a phone with an alarm that can have a bell sound, presumably :rolleyes:

It is not the job of RTE to remind the adherents of any particular religion of their requirement to pray at any particular time.

- it is of no use to any other group.

This will come as a surprise to a great many of your co-religionists especially here on Boards, who are convinced "It's not really catholic any more", "harmless", "bells aren't necessarily religious", "people looking stoned staring vaguely, rather than praying" etc. etc.

Why do you want to compromise the service provided to others just because you're not part of that group?

Because it is not RTE's job to promote a religion or remind its adherents it's prayer time.

If you want to pitch a few ideas for a "religion-free minute of reflection" to me, I'd be glad to hear them.

I fail to see the justification for one (religious or otherwise) but a necessary start would be to no longer call it the Angelus and remove the church bells.

lazybones32

Cabaal wrote: »

lol, you fail at this :pac:

At what? This is your best response to what was posted?!

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is not the job of RTE to remind the adherents of any particular religion of their requirement to pray at any particular time.







Because it is not RTE's job to promote a religion or remind its adherents it's prayer time.



I fail to see the justification for one (religious or otherwise) but a necessary start would be to no longer call it the Angelus and remove the church bells.

As has been written before "RTE provide a service for the Catholics". An RTE producer was asked by Matt Cooper why RTE promote Catholicism by broadcasting the Angelus and the producer gave the answer that I've already supplied (from previous interactions with you, I think I'll have to repeat that phrase multiple times).
Do you understand the difference between offering a service and endorsing something? RTE serve people and business by allowing advertisements but RTE don't recommend anyone buy or adhere to whatever is advertised or broadcast.

You failed "to see the justification" and failed to see when someone is taking the piss...

looksee

lazybones32 wrote: »

At what? This is your best response to what was posted?!



As has been written before "RTE provide a service for the Catholics". An RTE producer was asked by Matt Cooper why RTE promote Catholicism by broadcasting the Angelus and the producer gave the answer that I've already supplied (from previous interactions with you, I think I'll have to repeat that phrase multiple times).
Do you understand the difference between offering a service and endorsing something? RTE serve people and business by allowing advertisements but RTE don't recommend anyone buy or adhere to whatever is advertised or broadcast.

You failed "to see the justification" and failed to see when someone is taking the piss...

Oh right, the RCC pay for the Angelus do they? Well that improves things a good bit.

Hotblack Desiato

Actually I've no objection to RTE providing a public service to catholics. They broadcast masses which is a benefit to those who wish to attend them but cannot. They occasionally throw in a CoI one too to prove they're not biased :rolleyes:

That's fine. It's once a week and not in prime time and it can be justified on the basis of providing a service to religious people who are housebound.

They should occasionally do this for non-christian religions too.

The Angelus is not the same thing, it's twice a day, in prime viewing and listening time, is annoying, and is more of a territorial piss marker than anything else. It does not provide any useful service to anyone, because church bells exist and alarm clocks exist for those few out of earshot. It should never have been introduced in the first place, and if it hadn't been then nobody would be seeking it now.

lazybones32

looksee wrote: »

Oh right, the RCC pay for the Angelus do they? Well that improves things a good bit.

1) The subscribers of the RTE television license fee, pay for the service. And I guess that about 80% of the subscribers identify as Catholic (or whatever % identify as Catholic in the Census) I, as a fee-payer want the service to be retained.
2) According to a few quotes posted earlier, it doesn't appear that the RCC are forcing RTE to retain the Angelus. Neither does the RCC receive a dividend or have any say in whether the Angelus is relayed by the medium of tv.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

A hahahaha. I hated the Angelus as a brainwashed (Catholic) child. Standing up to say it, usually in the middle of dinner. A right pain in the arse.

The Catholic Church is really going to have to revise the brainwashing program. There's a very distinct lack of mind control evident in those who've been subjected to it.... someone should write to the Archbishop and tell him.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

The Catholic Church is really going to have to revise the brainwashing program. There's a very distinct lack of mind control evident in those who've been subjected to it.... someone should write to the Archbishop and tell him.

Brainwashing only lasts so long...

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Brainwashing only lasts so long...

How long? Just as a matter of interest. Is there a specific limit according to the technique used?

Eutow

lazybones32 wrote: »

1) The subscribers of the RTE television license fee, pay for the service. And I guess that about 80% of the subscribers identify as Catholic (or whatever % identify as Catholic in the Census) I, as a fee-payer want the service to be retained.
2) According to a few quotes posted earlier, it doesn't appear that the RCC are forcing RTE to retain the Angelus. Neither does the RCC receive a dividend or have any say in whether the Angelus is relayed by the medium of tv.

Including those that don't agree with the Angelus, so why should people against it pay for it? You use the 84% that ticked a box as justification for keeping it, well who says that these 84% agree with it? Some might, some couldn't care either way, and others would like to see it go. This is the problem with using the ticked boxed against Catholic to justify keeping it, because people have different levels of beliefs. That question shouldn't even be on the Census anyway.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

How long? Just as a matter of interest. Is there a specific limit according to the technique used?

Wouldn't it depend on the individual?

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Wouldn't it depend on the individual?

I can't say I've ever observed brainwashing in action, so I couldn't say. What qualities would you say an individual might possess to alter the duration of brainwashing?

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

I can't say I've ever observed brainwashing in action, so I couldn't say. What qualities would you say an individual might possess to alter the duration of brainwashing?

Luck, education, an open mind, lax parents (me). I think there was a major chipping away of the fog of religion after I joined the army. Being out there and being influenced by your peers can work wonders.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Luck, education, an open mind, lax parents (me). I think there was a major chipping away of the fog of religion after I joined the army.

None of those seem the strongest of influencers though? I'm reminded of the aphorism that there are no atheists in foxholes but perhaps that depends on the foxholes. Regardless, perhaps you weren';t so much brainwashed as just poorly persuaded?

Pherekydes wrote: »

Being out there and being influenced by your peers can work wonders.

I assume that works both ways though? Given the zealotry observed in converts (both to religion and anti-religion, to be fair).

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

None of those seem the strongest of influencers though?

Doesn't take much to break the hold these days...

I'm reminded of the aphorism that there are no atheists in foxholes but perhaps that depends on the foxholes.

One of religion's biggest conceits.

Regardless, perhaps you weren';t so much brainwashed as just poorly persuaded?

How else could you describe belief in so much pie in the sky? How could you describe the belief that someone thinks that their religion is the one true religion? Brainwashing sounds accurate to me.

I assume that works both ways though?

Trivially true.