So who's going to see the Pope?

optogirl · 27-06-2018 3:41pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

You might want to re-read what I said. Ironically, consider your own remarks re: comprehension.

You said that kids are indoctrinated before they can burp themselves

I simply asked how many indoctrinated kids you know who cannot burp themselves (i.e. are extremely young)

If you were indoctrinated at a few months, then you might want to blame your parents. Not the Pope. Claiming that any kid could already be indoctrinated into anything at a few months is silly

what is baptism?

Donald Trump · 27-06-2018 3:45pm

Omackeral wrote: »

You've the nerve to question other people's comprehension capabilities!? I said he is the head of the Church. That's where some people's ire will naturally be directed to. Now if the head of the church responsible for said abuses is coming here, that becomes somewhat of an opportunity for people to release that ire. It's not a hard one to grasp, even for you.

Grand. So your objective is reform and improvement of the church by strengthening its controls etc?

It's not the total removal or even limitation of its influence?

They sort out who dumped the babies in a tank rather than in a hole in the ground and you'll be happy then?

In reality, most people going on about the babies in the tank don't give a crap other than it's a handy stick to have to hand to use to justify their views.

Donald Trump · 27-06-2018 3:46pm

optogirl wrote: »

what is baptism?

This might help ya

Omackeral · 27-06-2018 3:54pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Grand. So your objective is reform and improvement of the church by strengthening it's controls etc?

It's not the total removal or even limitation of its influence?

They sort out who dumped the babies in a tank rather than in a hole in the ground and you'll be happy then?

Don't know what you're harping on about re the babies but the language you're using is fairly crass anyway.

As far as limitation or removal of church influences in day to day life, I'm chuffed anytime anything passes which assists in that. Good Friday off sales getting the green light was a victory for common sense. Now, I can honestly say I've never been to one of these famous Good Friday house parties and I probably visit a pub half a dozen times a year, if that. Not the point though. Any religion dictating what ordinary Joes or Josephines can do is wrong.

Same Sex Marriage passing was a victory for everyone. The church weren't mad on that. Glad to see their strangle hold evaporating. Blasphemy laws to go next. That would be obliterated I'd imagine.

Donald Trump · 27-06-2018 3:58pm

Omackeral wrote: »

Don't know what you're harping on about re the babies but the language you're using is fairly crass anyway.

As far as limitation or removal of church influences in day to day life, I'm chuffed anytime anything passes which assists in that. Good Friday off sales getting the green light was a victory for common sense. Now, I can honestly say I've never been to one of these famous Good Friday house parties and I probably visit a pub half a dozen times a year, if that. Not the point though. Any religion dictating what ordinary Joes or Josephines can do is wrong.

Same Sex Marriage passing was a victory for everyone. The church weren't mad on that. Glad to see their strangle hold evaporating. Blasphemy laws to go next. That would be obliterated I'd imagine.

Well at least we're getting to the truth.

You don't really care about the babies in the tank other than it's a handy tool for you to try to beat the church with. (I had added this point to my post but I think you had already quoted it).

In that sense, the more abuses and crimes that are committed and uncovered, the happier a lot of people are.

Alcohol licensing laws are controlled solely by the state. Referenda are controlled by the state. And each citizen can have one vote regardless of their religious beliefs or none. Why would you think otherwise?

mordeith · 27-06-2018 4:05pm

Fighting Tao · 27-06-2018 4:06pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Drawing out the easily outraged is also fun.
You may try and stop with the personal attacks, even AH has some rules.

The personal attacks from Donald Trump is why I withdrew from any discussion with him. Not sure how he’s getting away with the abuse.

Kermit.de.frog · 27-06-2018 4:08pm

The irony with those all out against the Catholic Church for example on the basis it "controls" aspects of their lives (i'd love to know what aspects these are incidentally) is that these are some of the exact same same people I don't see out protesting or causing uproar about Mosques being opened in Ireland for example - a religion I would consider far more insidious, intrusive and obstructive of human rights than any other.

I don't consider myself of any religion but i'm happy for people to decide what it is they want or don't want to believe for themselves.

If people want to see the Pope go for it. If people don't, it does not effect you so just stay away.

As a rule of thumb people who interfere like that or act the gob****e with others are not liked.

If you are not a catholic, couldn't be bothered or it has nothing to do with you just stay away. Let others enjoy the visit if that's what they want to do.

Omackeral · 27-06-2018 4:09pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well at least we're getting to the truth.
You don't really care about the babies in the tank other than it's a handy tool for you to try to beat the church with. (I had added this point to my post but I think you had already quoted it).

You're the one having a hard time wondering why people might have ill feeling towards the church. The above is one of many reasons. The sheer hypocrisy of the church trying to ''save our babies'' this summer when they participated in the above is brazen.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Alcohol licensing laws are controlled solely by the state. Referenda are controlled by the state. And each citizen can have one vote regardless of their religious beliefs or none. Why would you think otherwise?

The state, its laws and its institutions have been influenced massively by the RCC since its foundation. If you won't admit to that, there's no point continuing on really. Thankfully, the grip is loosening. It's wonderful.

Donald Trump · 27-06-2018 4:09pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The personal attacks from Donald Trump is why I withdrew from any discussion with him. Not sure how he’s getting away with the abuse.

I did not mean to attack you personally.

I will leave this thread now.

I apologize for upsetting anyone. Except for the people who bought loads of tickets with the specific and sole intention to deny others. If I upset them, I will not withdraw those particular remarks. Any other remarks that caused upset or perceived as unfair or unjustified to anyone are withdrawn

I will not post again in this one. Only editing this post to finalize my exit.

Omackeral · 27-06-2018 4:11pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The personal attacks from Donald Trump is why I withdrew from any discussion with him. Not sure how he’s getting away with the abuse.

It's those god-damn massive spaces he puts between his ''points'' that irk me more than his blind ramblings.

ohnonotgmail · 27-06-2018 4:16pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

I did not mean to attack you personally.

I will leave this thread now.

you attacked plenty of people personally and in a quite aggressive way.

Hotblack Desiato · 27-06-2018 4:21pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

As you'll surely know, but will not acknowledge, crimes committed by those within the church were committing crimes that were prohibited and against the teaching of the same church.

As you surely know, the cover-up of abuse was the policy of the church.

1hnr79jr65 · 27-06-2018 4:22pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The personal attacks from Donald Trump is why I withdrew from any discussion with him. Not sure how he’s getting away with the abuse.

Same, I refuse to respond to the guy as all he can do is attack the poster and takes it to a very personal level.

FingerDeKat · 27-06-2018 4:33pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As you surely know, the cover-up of abuse was the policy of the church.

and not only here
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0626/973219-stolen-babies-trial/

HappyAsLarE · 27-06-2018 5:01pm

The modern liberal - wants rid of Christianity, but up for more Islam.

uptherebels · 27-06-2018 5:05pm

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

The modern liberal - wants rid of Christianity, but up for more Islam.

You mean rid of influence of the RCC on any part of Irish society? People are free to practise their faith as long as they keep it to themselves. That includes islam

HappyAsLarE · 27-06-2018 5:14pm

uptherebels wrote: »

You mean rid of influence of the RCC on any part of Irish society? People are free to practise their faith as long as they keep it to themselves. That includes islam

Haha good luck riding influence of the church. Thou shalt not kill.

One eyed Jack · 27-06-2018 5:15pm

uptherebels wrote: »

You mean rid of influence of the RCC on any part of Irish society? People are free to practise their faith as long as they keep it to themselves. That includes islam

That's a contradiction, not that anyone actually needs permission in the first place when it's their legal right to do so under the Irish Constitution and under a number of legal Conventions. Even Leo is aware that's something his Government has no interest in doing anything about -

'I believe in allowing women to become priests' - Taoiseach weighs in on unholy row between Josepha Madigan and Archbishop

"As regards female priests, I believe in equality in all things and equality in the workplace. That would include priests to marry and allowing women to become priests.

"I also strongly believe in the separation of Church and State so that is not something the Government is going to be legislating about," he said.

uptherebels · 27-06-2018 5:27pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a contradiction, not that anyone actually needs permission in the first place when it's their legal right to do so under the Irish Constitution and under a number of legal Conventions. Even Leo is aware that's something his Government has no interest in doing anything about -

'I believe in allowing women to become priests' - Taoiseach weighs in on unholy row between Josepha Madigan and Archbishop

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

One eyed Jack · 27-06-2018 5:32pm

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!

Hotblack Desiato · 27-06-2018 5:36pm

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

The modern liberal - wants rid of Christianity, but up for more Islam.

Citation needed.

27-06-2018 6:14pm

I listened to that pathetic person “Eva” on the Joe Duffy show with Philip V. Hayes yesterday, who purchased 12 tickets “in protest” and won’t be going.

Seriously Eva- no one cares about your pathetic life or pathetic “action”- you just came across as a sad lonely bitter individual.

Fighting Tao · 27-06-2018 6:19pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I listened to that pathetic person “Eva” on the Joe Duffy show with Philip V. Hayes yesterday, who purchased 12 tickets “in protest” and won’t be going.

Seriously Eva- no one cares about your pathetic life or pathetic “action”- you just came across as a sad lonely bitter individual.

You care enough to post here.

27-06-2018 6:23pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You care enough to post here.

Why are you confused. This is a discussion forum

:rolleyes:

Fighting Tao · 27-06-2018 6:25pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why are you confused. This is a discussion forum :rolleyes:

Because you said that no one cares when you do.

27-06-2018 6:26pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Because you said that no one cares when you do.

Oh seriously. Close the laptop, please.

Fighting Tao · 27-06-2018 6:28pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh seriously. Close the laptop, please.

You made a statement about no one caring but you posted your outrage. Sorry butI can’t close your laptop for you from here!

27-06-2018 6:30pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You made a statement about no one caring but you posted your outrage. Sorry butI can’t close your laptop for you from here!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:pac:

WinnyThePoo · 27-06-2018 6:31pm

He just wants everyone to know how little he cares

Buford T. Justice XIX · 27-06-2018 7:46pm

pone2012 wrote: »

Nobody made you an imbecile... If you are one you have chosen that path.... although you do display it consistently in your posts

Mod note: pone2012, don't post in this thread again,

Buford T. Justice

Eggs For Dinner · 27-06-2018 8:48pm

I've become less bothered by the Catholic Church as they continue to lose their relevance on Irish society. I come from an era where you couldn't get a condom in Ireland and if you said anything against a priest you were clattered.

Now we have gay marriage, divorce, the 8th is gone and progress is being made on their hold over schools and hospitals. They are fading in to insignificance, thankfully. However, there are a couple of generations of people who take comfort in the church, so let them off, I won't begrudge them this event. It's these "loyal followers" who have lost most by having scummy leaders.

MadYaker · 27-06-2018 10:47pm

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.

AllForIt · 28-06-2018 12:27am

MadYaker wrote: »

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.

I'd hardly think anyone is buying up tickets just to bin them so that less ppl will attend. That would be one expensive kind of protest and not very effective either. How much per ticket just out of curiosity if anyone knows?

The problem is in regards protest is that we as lay ppl still don't know what is going on re the child abuse scandals. How many clergy are still in their role who are responsible for cover ups? How many clergy who are perpetrators haven't been brought to justice and who are still in a position to carry out such crimes.

Until such time that the Catholic church performs a full in-house investigation, and are seen to do so to the satisfaction of all, it's going to be a long long time before anyone can have trust in the Catholic hierarchy again. Not it's members but everyone else.

So I would say if protests are declared by the protesters to be for specific reasons - rather than just issues of moral teachings- then protests are fine. But if they are just about general anti-religion reasons- then I wouldn't be in favour.

Geuze · 28-06-2018 12:30am

All tickets are free.

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

Geuze · 28-06-2018 12:36am

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.

Omackeral · 28-06-2018 6:56am

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

realdanbreen · 28-06-2018 8:43am

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

I've become less bothered by the Catholic Church as they continue to lose their relevance on Irish society. I come from an era where you couldn't get a condom in Ireland and if you said anything against a priest you were clattered.

Now we have gay marriage, divorce, the 8th is gone and progress is being made

I find the whole trumpeting of 'now we have gay marriage etc' (not by you but by politicians and various groups) a bit amusing. Of course gay marriage should have been allowed and was long overdue and as for the criminalisation of gay people we are 'celebrating ' the fact that it was decriminalised 25 years ago when in fact it also should have happened many years earlier-in fact it should never have been a criminal offence.
It's all a bit similar to how we tore the arse out of riverdance!

realdanbreen · 28-06-2018 8:44am

Omackeral wrote: »

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

That's a joke before anyone gets triggered

And Scots!

nozzferrahhtoo · 28-06-2018 9:12am

BliainanAir wrote: »

Bigoted comments as expected. Big men like you rarely take on Islam but take the easy option of the Catholic Church. And behind a screen.

That is a self selecting statistic however, which is one of the worst kind of statistics. Christianity is by far the dominate religion in our society. So of course the statistics on people "taking on" that religion will be proportional, and their issues with relatively absent religions like Islam will be too. To mangle that real statistic into some commentary and narrative is the real feux "big man" move here.

If you want people to deal with Christianity and Islam in some fair 50:50 fashion, then wait until the presence of Christianity and Islam is a 50:50 split. And you will get it automatically.

However even then I do not think you can assume how "rarely" it is people take on Islam. This thread is not about Islam, so you will see what you want to see. Plenty of us very much do work against Islam. YOU just do not see it here.

The fact is many of us do in fact believe Islam to be a more dangerous, more intolerant, more immature, more insidious religion than Christianity. And we are no less afraid to say that than we are to stand up and work on that in the real world. Which, also, you do not see.

BliainanAir wrote: »

You are the anti Catholic. That's bigotry by definition. You do realise that?

I think there is a distinction to be made between being anti catholic and anti catholocism. And the latter is a very valid and justifiable thing to be. I would not merely assume as you have that someone is the former just because it gives you something to say.

BliainanAir wrote: »

We'll it's the prettiest way possible of protesting. Cowardly. Can't you lot go in person and protest? You, ticket booking heroes, come across as spineless.

Why do you assume people are not doing both? Some aren't for sure. But many likely are.

nozzferrahhtoo · 28-06-2018 9:12am

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.

ELM327 · 28-06-2018 9:13am

Omackeral wrote: »

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

That's a joke before anyone gets triggered

realdanbreen wrote: »

And Scots!

And cavan people

nozzferrahhtoo · 28-06-2018 9:13am

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 · 28-06-2018 9:34am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

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.

ohnonotgmail · 28-06-2018 9:38am

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.

Benjamin Buttons · 28-06-2018 9:39am

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.

Wtf is 'spiritual guidance' when it's at home, and how does one become an 'expert' in same?????
You're having a laugh!

realdanbreen · 28-06-2018 9:59am

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 · 28-06-2018 10:05am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

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.

Benjamin Buttons wrote: »

Wtf is 'spiritual guidance' when it's at home, and how does one become an 'expert' in same?????
You're having a laugh!

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".

ohnonotgmail · 28-06-2018 10:24am

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.

One eyed Jack · 28-06-2018 10:36am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well we discussing specific advice regarding the raising of children

In what way is a priest an expert in that?

They would be qualified to offer parents advice on how to raise their children in the Catholic faith as members of the Catholic Church.

It can't be that hard to grasp, surely?

So who's going to see the Pope?

Comments