Catholic Church, Mass Attendance

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Surely you mean with parents like that? And again there we would disagree, because again, I don’t see any conflict, where you do, based on your own simplification of reality. That’s what’s commonly known as a loaded question - you’re asking a question when you’ve already determined that your answer is objectively the correct one, you’ve already determined there is a contradiction there, and for anyone to say there’s not, is unacceptable to you.

The conflict is glaringly obvious. It's not up for debate.

The values of Catholicism are of loving, caring parents. Yet your god either caused, or allowed to be caused, the slow, aching, agonising death from cancer of many children, in front of their parents.

It's seems that your god is, at best, a bit of a hypocrite.

Love the Nick Cave track though

I don't think my parents believed in the "moving statues", and they're religious

AH is After Hours, and CA is Current Affairs

Silentcorner wrote: »

Millions didn't...but loads did...the whole summer of 85 was awash with moving statues.

Most people went for the chip van or the ice cream van
The moving statue was a bonus

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Alot of hated towards the organisation on the thread, total condemnation it seems. I take it the organisation never did any good in the country at any point?

It was interesting to see the contrast between the Pope and Queens visit, and people's reactions. The former was wholly negative, the latter wholly positive. Seeing as Britain killed far more people here, and caused more/just as much misery, the contrast in how we view both is interesting

The desolation of the Christian faith among the common people in Christendom and the persecution of Christians in the remaining bastions of the faith in Africa and the Middle East are clear signs that we approach the end of the age. The generation that has now passed away were the last of the mass faithful in the western world. Christianity is now suddenly a minority and revolutionary world view. Just as it was when the Caesar Nero tortured and murdered them two millennia ago.

How extraordinary has been the change in the western world in a few decades. Truly our ancestors who constructed such wonders as the Hagia Sophia, the Notre Dame de Paris or Saint Peters Basilica would never have believed the desolation of the faith. True believers, those few faithful that remain, should take heart and read Matthew 24 and pray for humanity. For the hour is late.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is the third time now you’ve tried to phrase the same question in different ways. My answer will be the same no matter how many times or how many ways you attempt to phrase the question to get the answer you really want.

The answer is no, I don’t see any contradiction there. I completely get that you see a contradiction, but I don’t. In a similar way, I might regard someone simply as an imbecilic arsehole, whereas you might regard them as a pillar of intellectual rigour. Different people see different things, differently. A child could grasp the concept you appear to be struggling with as an adult.

I absolutely agree. The question only makes sense if there is a god in existence to answer it. Otherwise it makes no sense at all to ask the questions at all.

The simplest way out is if there no God and the questions don't make sense in the first place. If there's a god then the question needs an answer.

I don't expect any gods to answer. The gods, if they exist, they tend to make their existence very hard to corroborated.

pconn062 wrote: »

...

I have noticed though that most of my friends and relatives still get their children baptised, even the ones that didn't have religious weddings. I'm not sure why that is, whether it's to please parents or Grandparents or due to the pressure to secure school places in the future, as sad as that is...

I have no time for any of the Catholic nonsense but I would baptise my children if it gave them an option of a better school. Easy choice.

I'd teach them about theology, Catholic and otherwise, and make sure they didn't take Catholicism seriously. But if it gave them more choices in education then I'd do whatever suits.

That Catholics can educate my children in anything except religion.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I absolutely agree. The question only makes sense if there is a god in existence to answer it. Otherwise it makes no sense at all to ask the questions at all.

The simplest way out is if there no God and the questions don't make sense in the first place. If there's a god then the question needs an answer.

I don't expect any gods to answer. The gods, if they exist, they tend to make their existence very hard to corroborated.

You agree with what? I never argued that the question didn’t make any sense. The question makes sense, and it’s one I used ask myself many times, it’s how I came to the belief that while there is a God, he’s not an interventionist God. Andrew didn’t ask God, he asked a question in an open forum of people who are religious. The essence of the question is that God is a hypocrite because Andrew proposes there is a contradiction between a loving God, and a God who he believes causes or allows people to suffer. The point I was making to Andrew is that it isn’t so black and white, but rather it depends upon a person’s perspective of God. I happen to be of the belief that while it might appear to Andrew that God can’t possibly be a loving God if he causes or allows suffering, I don’t think he causes or allows suffering. I used the theory of Evolution and scientific inquiry to make the point - it starts with some basic assumptions and we kind of fill in the gaps in our knowledge with ideas that make sense based upon deductive reasoning.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you're not a believer in an interventionist God, what evidence to you have that any God's exist at all?

The question of belief in an interventionist or non-interventionist God is based upon the belief that God exists in the first place, it doesn’t speak to whether or not he exists, it supposes that he does exist. So based upon the belief that he exists, then what type of God is he - a God on whose constant intercession we rely on for help, or a God to whom we look for guidance and protection throughout our lives? The answer to that will differ even among Catholics themselves, so I can only answer from my own perspective, whereas someone else may offer a different answer based upon their perspective. It’s as I explained earlier and something I’ve always believed - different people see different things, differently. I don’t know for certain that you understand that, I have no evidence that you understand it, but I believe that you do understand the concept that different people see different things, differently.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You agree with what? I never argued that the question didn’t make any sense. The question makes sense, and it’s one I used ask myself many times, it’s how I came to the belief that while there is a God, he’s not an interventionist God. Andrew didn’t ask God, he asked a question in an open forum of people who are religious. The essence of the question is that God is a hypocrite because Andrew proposes there is a contradiction between a loving God, and a God who he believes causes or allows people to suffer. The point I was making to Andrew is that it isn’t so black and white, but rather it depends upon a person’s perspective of God. I happen to be of the belief that while it might appear to Andrew that God can’t possibly be a loving God if he causes or allows suffering, I don’t think he causes or allows suffering. I used the theory of Evolution and scientific inquiry to make the point - it starts with some basic assumptions and we kind of fill in the gaps in our knowledge with ideas that make sense based upon deductive reasoning.





The question of belief in an interventionist or non-interventionist God is based upon the belief that God exists in the first place, it doesn’t speak to whether or not he exists, it supposes that he does exist. So based upon the belief that he exists, then what type of God is he - a God on whose constant intercession we rely on for help, or a God to whom we look for guidance and protection throughout our lives? The answer to that will differ even among Catholics themselves, so I can only answer from my own perspective, whereas someone else may offer a different answer based upon their perspective. It’s as I explained earlier and something I’ve always believed - different people see different things, differently. I don’t know for certain that you understand that, I have no evidence that you understand it, but I believe that you do understand the concept that different people see different things, differently.

Re the first paragraph, I quoted the wrong poster.

Re the second paragraph. So you believe it because you've always believed it. That doesn't sound like an evidence based position. When you don't have evidence, isn't it normal to suspend belief until there's evidence?

And a non interventionist god isn't likely to leave any evidence behind. So it sounds like wishful thinking rather than a reasoned belief.

Das Reich wrote: »

As far as I hate them we can agree that some things were better before.

You hate catholics but you think it was better when contraception, divorce and homosexuality were illegal?

That falls under the belief system known as deism

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm asking the question because I'm trying to actively listen and see is there something that I've missed. The absence of any answer is suggesting that there isn't anything that I've missed, but I'm still open.

Andrew with the greatest of respect I suggest you go back through the thread where I’ve already pointed out to you that I’ve answered your question posed in three different ways already with the same answer. You’re not satisfied with the answer I’ve given you so you’re continuing to press and press until I give you the answer you really want. I could give you the answer you want, but I wouldn’t be telling the truth. I’d literally be giving you the answer you want, because that’s what you’re listening for - you’re not listening for an answer (because I’ve answered the same question three times already).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This isn't about the opinions or actions of children with cancer or their families. If you want to get into that discussion, I'd suggest that Donal's well-intentioned intervention was totally misguided. It's a bit like going up to someone with a broken leg and telling them to get up and go for a run, don't be feeling sorry for yourself. Mental health issues don't get fixed by being patronised and told to 'pull yourself together'. The best chance of mental health issues getting fixed is by the slow, painful treatment by expert professions - the psychiatric nurses, the social workers, the psychologists, the counselors and the psychiatrists.

It wasn’t, until you brought up the question as to why cancer exists. We already know that cancer develops in many species, we just don’t have any good reason as to why specifically cancer? I don’t have any good reason yet either and I don’t understand what purpose cancer serves in terms of how it fits in with evolution. You raised a hypothetical and abstract scenario which suited your own purposes from your own perspective. I gave a real life example to demonstrate the complexity of circumstances for children who develop cancer and their families. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation for the existence of cancer myself, but when I witness the positive actions of a child like Donal Walsh when he developed cancer, and his attitude towards life and his attitude that it was part of Gods plan, again I find myself thinking “that’s one shìtty plan”, and the alternative being that God doesn’t have a plan, shìt just happens.

I’d also suggest though that you missed the point of Donals intervention (I can understand why too - as it doesn’t square neatly with the portrayal of misery you made out earlier) that you’re willing to overlook the fact that his intervention done a lot more good than had he not intervened and not raised nearly half a million euro for charity and there was now a Donal Walsh room in every Pieta House. I don’t agree with you that the best chance of mental health issues getting fixed is by the slow, painful treatment by expert professions. Having dealt with many of them in my lifetime, there are far too many who are only interested in pushing the latest trendy fad whether it be CBT, DBT, EMDR, mindfulness, etc, etc. The better ones will acknowledge that the same treatment doesn’t work for everyone, and there simply isn’t a one size fits all when it comes to addressing ill mental health. That’s why I dislike the broken leg analogy, not only because it’s incredibly simplistic and displays a woeful lack of understanding of the complexity of mental health, but because mental health isn’t something tangible, like a broken leg. It shouldn’t be that difficult to understand, but unfortunately for some people it’s often a bit like trying to help them understand transubstantiation when they have nothing to relate it to.

It was Stephen Fry btw who suggested that victims of sexual abuse should stop feeling sorry for themselves -


Stephen Fry criticised for telling 'self-pitying' abuse victims to grow up


As the President of a mental health charity at the time, one would expect that he would be more aware of the impact of his words on other people, but I had known long before then that Fry had disappeared up his own arsehole long before he ever made an appearance on Gaybo’s show to demonstrate what a small-minded snivelling, sneering shìtehawk he could be. Regarding him as a hypocrite was being kind.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But regardless of whether Donal was a hero or not, it doesn't change the outcome. His parents had to watch him die. They missed out on any chance of seeing him grow in to an adult, to see him getting married or having kids perhaps, to visit him in his own house.

There is an absolute direct conflict between the image of a loving, benevolent god, and a god that allows childhood cancer to happen.

Eh? How can you say it doesn’t change the outcome when that’s exactly what it does? It doesn’t jig with your perspective of how miserable life must be for children who develop cancer, because you’re ignoring the fact that reality is far more complex than the hypothetical you initially presented which suited your purposes - “children who develop cancer could only be miserable, because it’s a shìtty thing for anyone to have to cope with”, and you ignore the reality of those children who develop cancer whose circumstances that don’t suit your purposes. That’s why I used the analogy of evolution - because fcuk knows why larvae exist which can cause blindness in children, I can’t see why they exist or how they serve any useful purpose whatsoever, and the reason I can’t see it isn’t because they don’t serve a useful purpose in terms of evolution. It’s simply that I don’t yet understand their purpose. In exactly the same way, I pointed out to you that I don’t know the mind of God, so I don’t understand why humans can be brought to their knees by a virus which is so minuscule it can’t even be seen with the naked eye, but I don’t believe that there is any malicious intent in God, any more than I don’t believe there is any intent in evolution, as that’s leaning towards intelligent design, which is not a belief I subscribe to.