So who's going to see the Pope?

uptherebels wrote: »

How is it a contradiction? You don't want to drink on holy days- then don't, but don't force it on others by wanting pubs closed. You want your kids to be taught to a religious ethos ,work away but don't expect the state to fund those schools make them private and away you go.
It's not that difficult a concept to understand.
It is very easy to keep your religion to yourself. I never said anything about needing permission. But I see you exagerate as usual

Ohh right, I thought you were making some sort of a decree declaring what I could and could not do. That's fine then, you're not.

Phew, for a minute there I thought I might have to take that seriously!

Im not bothered about it and I won't be going, im an atheist. But I think its a bit mean spirited of people to be buying up tickets when they've no intention of actually going just to try and prevent people who want to go from getting tickets.

All tickets are free.

https://www.worldmeeting2018.ie/en/

Geuze wrote: »

Posters here have used the verbs buying and purchasing.

Please note there is no price on any tickets.

You must have a ticket, but there is no price.

The tickets are free.

Great, now the thing will be full of Jewish people.


That's a joke before anyone gets triggered

Omackeral wrote: »

Great, now the thing will be full of Jewish people.


That's a joke before anyone gets triggered

And Scots!

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Why don't the trendy atheists understand that some people need the idea of God to help them in life?

I am not convinced they actually do "need" it though. They might think they need it, or they might want it, or they might enjoy it. The idea that they ACTUALLY "need" it however is solely and wholly your assertion from nothing.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I wouldn't have the arrogance to sneer at a mother who prays every night that she will see her dead child in another life.

No need to "sneer" at that to be concerned about it. Grief is a wound and a wound that needs to heal. And I fear that not healing by instead pretending that dead person is still in fact alive and well somewhere can cause longer term suffering and pain and damage.

Alas anecdotally I have seen that very thing in my own life. Where someone dealt with their grief through faith and then later when they lost their faith they had to basically lose the dead person all over again, but for real this time.

And that suffering was worse the second time around than the first, because many of the tools we have to deal with grief are weakened with time. Such as clear memories of the person who is dead. Dealing with such things fast and soon is in fact a priority sometimes, which is why the US flew child counsellors into ground zero of disaster zones to help children who's parents had just died in the disaster. Rather than wait until the children were taken safely out of the zones.

Dealing with grief early and well is important. Postponing that by lying to yourself about the death of another person might SEEM nice at the time, but I question how ethical an approach it is.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Or I wouldn't scoff at the local prayer group who visit the sick and elderly every evening. Unfortunately I just don't possess that level of arrogance.

Again sneering and scoffing is not required to question the scenario however. I would, for example, question their motivations. I know people who visit the sick and elderly all the time without religion. They do it solely and wholly because they believe it to be the right thing to do.

Can the religious say the same? I am sure SOME of them can. But SOME of them are doing it for the entirely selfish reasons that they think it will incur some benefit or indulgence or favor with their god and improve their own after life.

While others visit the sick and vulnerable for more insidious reasons, which is that the vulnerable are prime targets to sell religion to. History has seen plenty of that where the religious orders rush into zones in need to "help" but are quite often more interested in spreading their religion to those zones.

So no, no sneering or scoffing or arrogance is required. Just a calm and rational openness to questioning what peoples motivations and agendas might actually be, and whether there are more moral and ethical alternatives available.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Wow, fantastic rebuttal.

says the user who's rebuttal on the thread so far was "yawn yawn yawn". I am not sure you are in a position to comment on the quality of the rebuttal of others until you construct some of your own.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm not religious. I just hate intolerance in any form.

Despite the fact you show a lot of your own? Seems your own intolerance is just fine. It is intolerance in others that solely seems to concern you.

However even then your virtue signalling one liner is questionable just on the face of it. There are intolerance that are GOOD things. So being against intolerance in ANY form is nothing more than a virtue signalling attempt.

For example I am intolerant towards the sexual rape and abuse of children. So you are against that intolerance too then are you? Well that reveals a lot!

I am also intolerant towards lies, and people claiming truths they have no substantiation for. Both of which are GOOD things to be intolerant against. But "yawn yawn yawn" is probably the best you can do to "rebut" such intolerance.

opinionated3 wrote: »

At the end of the day, this is supposed to be a celebration of the family. I think that point has been a little bit lost in the whole debate.

That is not how I heard the event described by someone who is actually supportive of the event. The event itself is less a celebration of the family so much as it is a conference on how to indoctrinate children into the catholic church, and best practices on how to achieve this.

Micheal Kelly editor Irish Catholic describes it as follows "It takes place every three years, and is a Vatican sponsored event. Basically it was set up by Pope John Paul II back in the 90s to reflect on challenges facing the family in contemporary society, and what the church can do to help explain it's teaching better"

So it sounds like less of a celebration of family so much as focusing on getting catholic teaching into the family. Sounds like a business and marketing strategy meeting to me as befits what the church actually is. A business.

One could and should question their knowledge and credentials to speak on the topic of "family" however. As others have said, being single, celibate or not in a family does not preclude you from having such skills or knowledge. But it does offer valid ground for us to question what then their credentials ACTUALLY are.

Strazdas wrote: »

The idea of the protest might seem a good one at first glance (the legitimate idea of mounting a protest against the formal institution of the Catholic Church for past and current misdemeanours). But if it ends up disrupting ordinary Catholics who want to see the Pope instead, it becomes completely self defeating

Perhaps, but without justifying it I could also point out that this is not uncommon. The people effected by many protests are often the ones we least want to affect, but we do all the same. Picket lines at transport for example, air or land, have been seen over the last decade. And the main people who suffer from that disruption is the consumer/traveler. When transport staff go on strike at a specific time like Christmas, when they KNOW innocent members of the public like myself want to travel home to family, I do not believe they do it because they enjoy making the innocent suffer.

As I said this is not to justify anything. But to point out that this unfortunate side effect is by NO means limited to protests against the visit of the pope.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a stupid comparison at all.

Except it is because you are merely talking about a priest who can "interact with families on a daily basis" and comparing that to a surgeon who has actually done study and work.

Next time you need a hip replacement, if you want your comparison to be fair, then find a person to do it who has "interacted with people who have had hip replacements" or has "traveled a fair bit in their lifetimes and observed other cultures and societies in other countries" who have had hip replacements...........rather than actually studied the science and practice and knowledge we have related to that field.

THEN your comparison will stop being a stupid one, as it will actually be a valid comparison to make unlike the one you actually made.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're ripping things out of context there nozz. Kunst's point was that priests wouldn't really be in any position to give advice with regard to raising children, and my point was that there was nothing precluding them from giving such advice, and certainly not by virtue of the fact that they weren't parents themselves. His point as I understood it was that they lacked the necessary personal experience. Well to the best of my knowledge, so does my orthapaedic consultant.

However, just as I would not visit my priest to ask him to perform hip surgery, I wouldn't visit my orthopaedic consultant for moral and spiritual guidance. Both are experts in their respective areas and are qualified to give advice on matters specifically relating to their particular area of expertise. Sometimes I may regard their advice as a complete crock, and sometimes I may not.

You didn't understand the comparison so you think it's invalid. You're probably acutely aware by now that your opinion is worth nothing to me, which renders anything you have to say on the matter, invalid.

in what way is a priest an expert in their respective areas and qualified to give advice on matters specifically relating to their particular area of expertise.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not convinced they actually do "need" it though. They might think they need it, or they might want it, or they might enjoy it. The idea that they ACTUALLY "need" it however is solely and wholly your assertion from nothing.



No need to "sneer" at that to be concerned about it. Grief is a wound and a wound that needs to heal. And I fear that not healing by instead pretending that dead person is still in fact alive and well somewhere can cause longer term suffering and pain and damage.

Alas anecdotally I have seen that very thing in my own life. Where someone dealt with their grief through faith and then later when they lost their faith they had to basically lose the dead person all over again, but for real this time.

And that suffering was worse the second time around than the first, because many of the tools we have to deal with grief are weakened with time. Such as clear memories of the person who is dead. Dealing with such things fast and soon is in fact a priority sometimes, which is why the US flew child counsellors into ground zero of disaster zones to help children who's parents had just died in the disaster. Rather than wait until the children were taken safely out of the zones.

Dealing with grief early and well is important. Postponing that by lying to yourself about the death of another person might SEEM nice at the time, but I question how ethical an approach it is.



Again sneering and scoffing is not required to question the scenario however. I would, for example, question their motivations. I know people who visit the sick and elderly all the time without religion. They do it solely and wholly because they believe it to be the right thing to do.

Can the religious say the same? I am sure SOME of them can. But SOME of them are doing it for the entirely selfish reasons that they think it will incur some benefit or indulgence or favor with their god and improve their own after life.

While others visit the sick and vulnerable for more insidious reasons, which is that the vulnerable are prime targets to sell religion to. History has seen plenty of that where the religious orders rush into zones in need to "help" but are quite often more interested in spreading their religion to those zones.

So no, no sneering or scoffing or arrogance is required. Just a calm and rational openness to questioning what peoples motivations and agendas might actually be, and whether there are more moral and ethical alternatives available.



says the user who's rebuttal on the thread so far was "yawn yawn yawn". I am not sure you are in a position to comment on the quality of the rebuttal of others until you construct some of your own.



Despite the fact you show a lot of your own? Seems your own intolerance is just fine. It is intolerance in others that solely seems to concern you.

However even then your virtue signalling one liner is questionable just on the face of it. There are intolerance that are GOOD things. So being against intolerance in ANY form is nothing more than a virtue signalling attempt.

For example I am intolerant towards the sexual rape and abuse of children. So you are against that intolerance too then are you? Well that reveals a lot!

I am also intolerant towards lies, and people claiming truths they have no substantiation for. Both of which are GOOD things to be intolerant against. But "yawn yawn yawn" is probably the best you can do to "rebut" such intolerance.

Looks like the countdown has begun. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They've studied to become a Catholic priest and therefore I would consider them an expert in matters relating to the provision of moral and spiritual guidance for Catholics.

Well we discussing specific advice regarding the raising of children

Kunst's point was that priests wouldn't really be in any position to give advice with regard to raising children,

In what way is a priest an expert in that?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I was having a laugh, I'd have told you a joke, but here's one:


A young man from Cavan called Ciaran finds himself in dire trouble. His farm has gone bust and he's in serious financial trouble. He's so desperate that he decides to ask God for help. He goes into the Church and begins to pray...........

"God, please help me, I've lost my Farm and if don't get some money, I'm going to lose my house as well, please let me win the lotto".

Lotto night comes and somebody else wins it.
Ciaran goes back to the Church.....................

"God, please let me win the lotto, I've lost my farm, my house and I'm going to lose my tractor as well".

Lotto night comes and Ciaran still has no luck!!
Back to the Church.................

"My God, why have you forsaken me?? I've lost my Farm, my house, my tractor and my wife and 17 children are starving. I don't often ask you for help and I have always been a good servant to you. Why won't you just let me win the lotto this one time so I can get my life back in order???".

Suddenly there is a blinding flash of light as the heavens open and Ciaran is confronted by the voice of GOD himself:

"Ciaran, MEET ME HALF WAY ON THIS ONE, BUY A F**KING TICKET".

The first time i heard that joke it was a jewish guy in a synagogue.