An_Toirpin wrote: » Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?
Is cheating on a spouse ok?
It is perfectly legal.
Is degrading violent porn ok?
What about computer generated violent rape porn?
Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable
because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature.
This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk.
Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong.
Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » i presume you meant 'now' is an apt time. Id say it's a bit late, but tomorrow morning would be perfect. Ten or twenty years ago is what you should be asking for. And if this **** genuinely pisses you off, you'll continue protesting after he's left.
whisky_galore wrote: » Controversy already....https://www.breakingnews.ie/showbiz/singing-priest-father-kelly-takes-issue-with-nathan-carter-performing-for-the-pope-in-croke-park-857156.html "Today singing priest Father Ray Kelly spoke to Joe Duffy about his disappointment on not being asked to sing and his surprise at seeing Nathan Carter being asked to sing."
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Isn't jealously a sin?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country. This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated. That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though. I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives? No that definition of hell applies to all Catholics. Quantifying wellbeing and happiness is subjective, ranking it amongst different people is not. Re hell - fair point, but I was saying a Catholic definition of hell is irrelevant to non Catholics. Re happiness - then we can agree that there's no evidence of any alleged connection between happiness and religion.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country. This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated. That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though. I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives? No that definition of hell applies to all Catholics. Quantifying wellbeing and happiness is subjective, ranking it amongst different people is not.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country. This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated. That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though. I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives?
An_Toirpin wrote: » Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right? Absolutely How can it not be? "Wrong" requires somebody to have been harmed or negatively affected in some way, against their will. Is cheating on a spouse ok? By definition, cheating is not consensual, because you are breaking an emotional promise you made to someone. If it was totally consensual, AKA being in an open relationship, then it's not cheating and there's nothing wrong with it. It is perfectly legal. There are a lot of things which make a person an asshole and still aren't illegal. Is degrading violent porn ok? Absolutely, if the actors and actresses involved have consented to it. What about computer generated violent rape porn? Of course. There's literally no victim involved if it's CGI. Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable Source? Statistics? because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature. I respectfully disagree. Most people are capable of separating fact from fiction. This is the "violent video games breed criminals" argument all over again. This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk. And that's fine, if you choose to follow the church and believe in its teaching. What is not ok is to inflict these beliefs on those who have not chosen them, particularly impressionable children. That is, in my view, utterly evil and f*cked up. Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong. Bullsh!t. Catholicism literally teaches people that suffering is somehow a good thing because of the moronic concept of "original sin", that we all deserve unhappiness because some douchebag stole an apple a few million years ago. That is literally Catholic doctrine, and that's how the whole toxic embracing of spartanism and deliberate self-restriction / restrain from things which make people happy came about. Hell, if you don't believe in religion, the entire concept of Lent is f*cked up - it's literally based on the idea that self-denial of things which make you happy is something to be encouraged - not self-denial of things which are necessarily bad for you, not self-denial of things which harm others, just self-denial because somehow, not allowing yourself to enjoy your life to the fullest is a good thing. Again, that's fine if you choose to subscribe to it, but teaching it in school to children and presenting it as "fact" is enormously f*cked up. If they grow up and decide for themselves to do it, that's cool, but no one, no matter what age, should be coerced or bullied into doing these things, or taught that suffering and going through hardship is a good thing somehow. It's not. And humans are not born as undeserving "sinners" who have a black mark against their souls. The very concept is utterly poisonous, particularly for kids. Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through. I don't have any problem with teaching kids about religion, and I never said that I did. I think that religion is such a big part of human civilisation that people should be taught about it - and all of it. Teaching someone about a belief system is totally distinct from teaching someone that it's a "fact" that one particular belief system is the "right" one. And you can teach people about religion without all the "sexual pleasure is a bad thing and is just an unfortunate side effect of reproduction, so try not to enjoy yourself sexually unless it happens to be within an extremely narrow framework which this organisation 'approves' of". Here's one for you. Is it moral that a young boy going through puberty be told, by someone in authority or someone whose opinion they respect, that it's a "fact" that touching their genitals in the privacy of their own bedroom is "wrong", despite the fact that nobody is hurt and that it's one of the strongest, most basic urges people experience if they're undergoing normal puberty with normal adolescent hormone levels? I believe that it is psychological abuse, pure and simple. No different than telling someone that scratching an itch is something they should resist, and just suffer the itching sensation just... "because". F*ck that.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right? Absolutely How can it not be? "Wrong" requires somebody to have been harmed or negatively affected in some way, against their will.
I respectfully disagree. Most people are capable of separating fact from fiction. This is the "violent video games breed criminals" argument all over again.
What is not ok is to inflict these beliefs on those who have not chosen them, particularly impressionable children. That is, in my view, utterly evil and f*cked up
And humans are not born as undeserving "sinners" who have a black mark against their souls. The very concept is utterly poisonous, particularly for kids.
ork wrote: » 'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this monthhttps://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park???
An_Toirpin wrote: » Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.
Jennehy wrote: » Is he bringing his woman?
An_Toirpin wrote: » ork wrote: » 'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this monthhttps://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park??? Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.
martyc5674 wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute. That’s right :rolleyes: in fact they couldn’t do much more really, a commendable effort.
work wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » ork wrote: » 'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this monthhttps://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park??? Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute. Are you insane, All the guys in power are in their 70s and 80s and got there by being sycophantic ass kissers that toe the line no matter what. Society is splitting 3 ways. 1) The deluded that believe the evil and poisoned CC should be followed no matter what. Excuses can easily be derived at no matter how stupid....oh and they righted their wrongs, LAUGHABLE . 2) Probably the biggest group could not give a sh*t and 3) Those that are looking for real change. The first and third group will never agree. Anyway enjoy kissing the papal "ring" in the park.
An_Toirpin wrote: » You are totally mispresenting the situation to make your position more justified. There are many different views points out there and everyone is entitled to their view. But freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism and the muppets who rabbit on about separation of church and state, who then lecture Catholics on why they should change need to be called out as inconsistent.
Leroy42 wrote: » You have to compare that the CC stands itself up as the moral voice of humanity, the direct link to the one true God. That they 'could have done more' is a pretty damning indictment in itself. They have got into positions of power, generated immense wealth and driven the moral agenda for hundreds of years on the basis of this link to God. This is not just any organisation. Yet when the time came to actually stand up for truth, to stand up for the 'little' people, to not let power get in the way of the life that God wants us to live, as an organisation they chose to protect themselves. They have no moral authority. When you set yourself up as God's messengers on earth, only priests for administer sacraments for example, then surely you must live to a higher standard than those not chosen by Christ. Priests say that they are chosen by God, it was God that told them that was their calling. Not that they simply got enough points. But fine, you want to place them on the same level as any other organisation, fine with me. Take them out of the schools, ensure that they adhere to equality laws like everyone else. Was child rape not known by these moral guardians are a crime 60 years ago? What has changed in that time? It isn't the word or God, it is the word of man. The people have forced the CC to change, kicking and screaming. Now you want to paint them as some sort of paragons, when it is only by the virtue that they are closely watched and untrusted at this point that they have been forced to change in order to try to stay in any way relevant.
jobbridge4life wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » You are totally mispresenting the situation to make your position more justified. There are many different views points out there and everyone is entitled to their view. But freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism and the muppets who rabbit on about separation of church and state, who then lecture Catholics on why they should change need to be called out as inconsistent. How is that inconsistent?
An_Toirpin wrote: » If religion is something only done in private you have just as much right to comment on what I do in my bedroom as you do in church matters. You may comment but you just will look a doublespeak hypocrite like Josepha Madigan.
Leroy42 wrote: » Bu therein lies the rub. You are perfectly correct in that religious matters should be private and left down to each individual. Sure there are some people that think all religion is evil and should be wiped out, but from my knowledge that is a very small minority. Most people are content to let people believe whatever they want to believe. The problem is that religion itself doesn't see it that way. All churches, not just the CC but that is the main culprit in Ireland, but Islam in some countries, Judaism in others, evangelicals in the South of the US etc, want religion not to be simply a personal belief, left alone. They want it to be front and center.They want laws to be made based on their interpretation of morality. They want schools to teach their particular version of the 'truth'. It is only now, now that they are coming under increasing pressure from society, that they all of a sudden want everyone to be left alone and their views accepted.Was peoples views on divorce accepted for years? What about people individual position on abortion? Only recently has society taken back the decision of those sorts of things from the church. So by all means have a religion, religion can be a great and wonderful force. It can lead to great good and peace and serenity. But all that can also be achieved without it.
