"irregular" couples

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121522522#Comment_121522522

They’re referring to the relationship as irregular -

What the declaration does is say that the church will not treat people in "irregular" situations — like being in a LGBTQ relationship or being divorced and remarried — as if they are beyond the pale. We welcome them into the church. Full stop. We cannot perform a marriage for a relationship that our Catholic tradition does not recognize as a marriage, but that should not be any bar to our welcoming people.

https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/how-big-deal-new-vatican-document-same-sex-blessings

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121522591#Comment_121522591

as I recognised in my reply :)

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121522695#Comment_121522695

They’re not referring to people though? They’re referring to those type of relationships, and outside of marriage in the context of how the Catholic Church views marriage and the family and so on - relationships outside of that are irregular.

Tbh I don’t see it’s use as being particularly egregious or anything, I don’t think it makes any difference one way or the other to people in those situations, bit like the upcoming referendum on gender equality and the family in Ireland - their referring to marriage and ‘other durable relationships’ - it’s neither archaic, out of touch or undiplomatic. It’s just shìt to be drawing attention to the distinction at all.

niallpatrick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121522384#Comment_121522384

How can the bible forbid Christmas trees? Christ Jesu Bin Joseph was born roughly 2024 years ago. There was no Christmas in the new testament

niallpatrick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121521519#Comment_121521519

It's a Christ-mas tree to celebrate Christmas day the day of Christs Birth where kids are spoiled rotten and everyone wishes for world peace which will never come. The Christmas tree even though it ripped from the pagans and was adopted by the Germans is still a modern symbol of the Christian faith although in the dubious manner of commercialism.

tobefrank321

When teaching religion in schools they should start on day 1 with the history of the catholic church. By day 2 most people would see through them.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121523813#Comment_121523813

Have you forgotten there was an Old Testament? Common among cherry-picking Christians.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matt. 5:17

Jeremiah 10:

Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord:

“Learn not the way of the nations,

    nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens

    because the nations are dismayed at them,

for the customs of the peoples are vanity.

A tree from the forest is cut down

    and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman.

They decorate it with silver and gold;

    they fasten it with hammer and nails

    so that it cannot move.

Peregrinus

If you're going to be a biblical literalist, you have to be a biblical literalist. This passage doesn't forbid Christmas trees, or decorated trees generally. Either Hotblack or the source on which he relies have edited out the business end of this passage, theactual commandment, which comes immediately after the quoted passage. It's:

Do not fear them; they can do no harm,

Neither can they do any good.

(Far be it from me to impugn Hotblack's academic honesty; most likely he's just relying on a dodgy source. But it's a bit ironic that he denounces Christian cherry-pickers by quoting a plainly cherry-picking source himself.)

Also worth noting that the passage is expressly addressed to the "House of Israel"; i.e. to Jews. So, again, a biblical literalist (and not just a biblical literalist; this question was settled very early in the Christian era) would point out that Christians aren't Jews; Commandments addressed to Jews don't necessarily apply to Christians.

But, even if this commandment does apply to Christians, it doesn't say "don't have Christmas trees"; it says "don't be afraid of Christmas trees; they are morally neutral".

Obviously, people wouldn't set up Christmas trees in their own living rooms if they were afraid of them. So, scripture-wise, they're all good. It's the people who run screaming at the sight of a Christmas tree or who denounce them as evil that are on dodgy ground.

jonnreeks

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121522342#Comment_121522342

Well Said Hotblack Desiato!

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121524986#Comment_121524986

I don't think Bible Gateway is a dodgy source - I just stopped reading when it started going on about scarecrows in a cucumber field...

Checked a few websites and it seems the consensus is that it was referring to the carving of idols from wood. You'd think they'd make these sorts of things a bit clearer, wouldn't you 😀

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121524561#Comment_121524561

I've no problem with teaching about religions (plural) in school. It's when the taxpayer-funded teacher starts promoting a particular one as fact that I and many other parents have a problem with it.

gameoverdude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121513021#Comment_121513021

Not enough love in this world.