Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A chance to scrap the Angelus - Nutella, Croissants and Pineapples.

1…1112141617…25

Comments

  • #392
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    In fairness, the thrice daily Angelus prayer predates Catholicism (or more accurately predates Protestantism, which is where our modern understanding of "Roman' Catholicism arguably begins, as distinct from the catholism of the early church which distinguised it from Arian christianity); it was a Christian observance from about the 11th Century (ish). The observance is nowadays mainly Catholic, but it is still observed in some Anglican traditions, and remains a part of the Anglican Service Book, as well as appearing to still be part of Lutheran observance, so strictly speaking it is still a Christian observance that is not practiced by all Christian sects, rather than a purely Catholic one.


  • #393
    Skrynesaver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    The name is from the Latin for angel, which I believe predates Catholicism.

    When you searched for Angelus, did you see the other uses of the word? There's a separate page for the RTE broadcast.

    "The Angelus is an Irish radio and television programme first broadcast in 1950. On radio it is broadcast at 12:00 and 18:00 every day. On television, it is is broadcast at 18:00, immediately before the main evening news. Since 2009, the programme on television no longer includes Catholic imagery and the Angelus prayer itself is never broadcast."

    It is a tv and radio broadcast, there is no Catholic imagery, and the prayer itself isn't broadcast.

    Unless I've misinterpreted this thread and it really is the actual Angelus you want scrapped?

    I may have mentioned self deception earlier in relation to this (and many other faith related topics) but you've become a parody of Jesuitical reasoning.

    The Angelus, a program broadcast on RTE, is a Catholic call to prayer and saying otherwise is farcical. There is no point attempting a discussion with someone who denies reality to the extent you have in that statement. Goodbye.


  • #394
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,582 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    It is a tv and radio broadcast, there is no Catholic imagery, and the prayer itself isn't broadcast.

    Unless I've misinterpreted this thread and it really is the actual Angelus you want scrapped?

    No imagery?
    - Praying hands
    - The odd cross
    - The odd church

    Sure, we'll ignore the whole church bells which actually represent the Angelus on RTE since they started airing it. But sure we can ignore that...thats not catholic at all.

    Lets not forget that the chimes come from Dublin’s Pro-Cathedral that have been heard since The Angelus was first broadcast in 1950. You'll find this is also a Catholic building.

    You'll find that the angulas is very much based in the catholic faith right down to who produces the videos for it.

    For years and years its being produced by "Kairos Communications Limited", there registered company address is:

    The Society of the Divine,
    Word Missions,
    Maynooth,
    Co. Kildare.

    Now, lets learn about the The Society of the Divine shall we?

    "The Society of the Divine Word (SVD – Societas Verbi Divini), popularly called Divine Word Missionaries, is an international congregation of Catholic priests and brothers who primarily work where the gospel has not yet been preached or preached insufficiently and where the local Church is not yet viable on her own."

    Oh look, even the production company is catholic based....not shocking.

    If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck and lays eggs like a duck then its very much so a duck.

    Except in your world where you would prefer to call it a dog.
    :rolleyes:


  • #395
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,717 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Yes, it's a characteristically Catholic devotion (though, as Absolam points out, not an exclusively Catholic devotion).

    But so what? RTE has a mandate, as a public service broadcaster, to include religious programming in its output and, like public service broadcaster throughout the world, in pursuit of that mandate they broadcast a range of religious devotions. Including, obviously, the angelus.

    It may well be possible to make a case against broadcasting the angelus, but simply pointing out that it's a characteristically Catholic devotion is not much of a case.


  • #396
    Skrynesaver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes, it's a characteristically Catholic devotion (though, as Absolam points out, not an exclusively Catholic devotion).

    But so what? RTE has a mandate, as a public service broadcaster, to include religious programming in its output and, like public service broadcaster throughout the world, in pursuit of that mandate they broadcast a range of religious devotions. Including, obviously, the angelus.

    It may well be possible to make a case against broadcasting the angelus, but simply pointing out that it's a characteristically Catholic devotion is not much of a case.

    There is a problem when having a discussion with the hard of thinking in first agreeing what the discussion is about.

    The argument against having a sectarian call to prayer on a state funded public broadcaster at prime time directly before the main news of the day should be apparent.

    The co-option of this state by the Catholic church has a long and unfortunate history, currently I would rate the control of our education system as a more serious issue, however the symbolism of that call to prayer does offend me as a citizen of this state.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,717 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Skrynesaver wrote: »
    There is a problem when having a discussion with the hard of thinking in first agreeing what the discussion is about.

    The argument against having a sectarian call to prayer on a state funded public broadcaster at prime time directly before the main news of the day should be apparent.
    The argument against having anything sectarian on a public broadcaster is apparent. But I'm not seeing the argument that the agelus is sectarian.

    You glide rather glibly between saying that the Angelus is Catholic and saying that it is sectarian. "Catholic" does not equal "sectarian" any more than "Jewish" or "humanist" equals sectarian. A public service broadcaster should cover a diversity of perspectives on religious questions (including humanist, sceptical, atheist, etc perspectives). I don't see that you can arbitrarily pick one set of perspectives and label them "sectarian". Is it "sectarian" if RTE broadcasts a Methodist communion service or Jewish passover celebration, or if they cover a humanist conference or offer airtime to an Atheist spokesperson? If none of those are "sectarian", why is the angelus "sectarian"?


  • #398
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    This kind of thing along with the whole the angelus dont really matter thing are a bit odd. It's like telling some one there is nothing behind the door but they cant look.

    If it doesnt matter then why the resistance to doing it?

    Because the oddness is on changing something that's relatively benign. Like the angelus. Not only am I an atheist but my family is, except for my mum and my dads a strong anti catholic, an ex communist in fact. He worries the big stuff, like inequality. Bells on TV can only worry a total bigot.


  • #399
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,582 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    He worries the big stuff, like inequality. Bells on TV can only worry a total bigot.

    You're right you know,
    Sure imagery and sound doesn't affect anyone, that's why nobody has a problem with the confederate flag in the USA.

    Sure flags don't cause anyone any harm, only a total bigot would hate the confederate flag
    :rolleyes:

    Inequality and oppression comes in many ways, like putting one faith above all others on our national airwaves by giving it a prime time slot or leaving the catholic church indoctrinate our children at the tax payers expense.

    Its also what the imagery and sounds stands for. In this case we know without doubt that the Angelus stands for the catholic church, is created by a catholic owned company, uses bells from a catholic church since the 1950's and includes imagery to do with the catholic church.

    By all means rename it to "A moment of silence" or "A moment of peace", get rid of the bells and just have silence and images of all faiths and none. But in its current form it doesn't work and it puts the catholic church above others, this is wrong for numerous reasons.


  • #400
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Cabaal wrote: »
    You're right you know,
    Sure imagery and sound doesn't affect anyone, that's why nobody has a problem with the confederate flag in the USA.

    Sure flags don't cause anyone any harm, only a total bigot would hate the confederate flag
    :rolleyes:

    Inequality and oppression comes in many ways, like putting one faith above all others on our national airwaves by giving it a prime time slot or leaving the catholic church indoctrinate our children at the tax payers expense.

    Its also what the imagery and sounds stands for. In this case we know without doubt that the Angelus stands for the catholic church, is created by a catholic owned company, uses bells from a catholic church since the 1950's and includes imagery to do with the catholic church.

    By all means rename it to "A moment of silence" or "A moment of peace", get rid of the bells and just have silence and images of all faiths and none. But in its current form it doesn't work and it puts the catholic church above others, this is wrong for numerous reasons.

    The broadcast was revamped in 2009 which dropped the Catholic imagery. Perhaps you haven't seen the newer version.

    I don't know who owns the production company, if it even is "owned". But I imagine a lot of enterprises in this country are run by Catholics.

    If it's placing the Catholic church above all others as you claim, how come the only people who have an issue with it are those who don't follow any faith? Surely the whole thing is irrelevant for them?


  • #401
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Cabaal wrote: »
    You're right you know,
    Sure imagery and sound doesn't affect anyone, that's why nobody has a problem with the confederate flag in the USA.

    Sure flags don't cause anyone any harm, only a total bigot would hate the confederate flag
    :rolleyes:

    Inequality and oppression comes in many ways, like putting one faith above all others on our national airwaves by giving it a prime time slot or leaving the catholic church indoctrinate our children at the tax payers expense.

    Its also what the imagery and sounds stands for. In this case we know without doubt that the Angelus stands for the catholic church, is created by a catholic owned company, uses bells from a catholic church since the 1950's and includes imagery to do with the catholic church.

    By all means rename it to "A moment of silence" or "A moment of peace", get rid of the bells and just have silence and images of all faiths and none. But in its current form it doesn't work and it puts the catholic church above others, this is wrong for numerous reasons.

    It's like the abortion debate, where lines like 'abortion is never necessary to save the life of a woman' and they call other abortions terminations or somesuch. 'Abortion is directly targeting the unborn, unless its necessary to save the life of a woman then we call it a termination or life saving treatment and pretend doctors will try to save a foetus delivered at 18 weeks because we love them BOTH!!!111!!!'.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, we were talking about Catholic schools, not Christian ones, but how many Protestant schools are more on the fence than the Catholic ones I've mentioned? Is there a reason to think they're likely to suddenly start condoning homophobic bullying?

    Is there any reason at all to think your idea of oddness will lead to any schools becoming more tolerant of homophobic bullying?
    Well... you could go by their stated policies on homophobic bullying. That should give you a reasonable idea of where you stand with them, surely?

    Regardless of how hurtful the Church's stance is (or is perceived to be), it's pretty obviously not translating into Catholic schools failing to deal with homophobic bullying if their policies are anything to go on though, is it?
    That wasn't what you were saying, you were saying that 90% of our schools are run by an organisation that has a fundamental problem with gay people and particularly gay parents, and it'll be interesting to see how they'll deal with homophobic bullying. As if they're suddenly going to change how the'll deal with homophobic bullying for some reason?
    Anyways, perhaps it doesn't make sense because you haven't looked at what these organisations do from their point of view? Or considered that perhaps your perspective on their position doesn't accurately reflect their position.
    For instance compare your idea that the Church is 'officially anti-gay' with the Church position that you yourself have pointed out 'hate the sin love the sinner'. That doesn't sound like an official anti-gay position, does it? More an officially anti gay-act position. I appreciate the nuances may not lend themselves to the picture you're tying to paint, but case in point; homophobic bullying. Pope Benedict is on record as saying "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs... The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in work, in action and in law." Now I don't think the Pope is the worlds greatest supporter of Gay Rights (far, far, from it in fact), but as far as homophobic bullying goes, it appears that Catholic school policies are in line with the head of the Church's thinking on the subject, so where does a concern for how how they'll deal with homophobic bullying suddenly arise?
    You're trying to shoehorn the Church's position on homosexuality (or, to be more accurate, your perception of the Church's position on homosexuality) into the potential actions of schools under Catholic patronage, and immediately finding yourself at odds with how those schools are demonstrably behaving right now. The fact that that is not making sense to you may not be because the Church is being two faced; it may be because you haven't accurately expressed the Church's position, it may be because you're not considering the amount of influence the Church imposes on Catholic school boards, it may be because you're ascribing motivations to Catholic schools without considering the more immediate motivations they have as schools in the Irish State.
    But so far, it seems that the position of both the Catholic Church and of Catholic schools is to oppose homophobic bullying, regardless of how 'officially anti-gay' you think they are....

    Hmm...

    To be honest that makes them sound even worse. They're grand with gay people as long as they don't do anything gay?!

    A tad hypocritical, no?


  • #403
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Hmm...To be honest that makes them sound even worse. They're grand with gay people as long as they don't do anything gay?! A tad hypocritical, no?
    It seems to be consistent with the Catholic moral position, so as far as I can tell, no, it doesn't seem hypocritical.
    Luckily, despite any concerns you might have about the internal consistency of their position, it seems you can rest assured that your concerns about their position on homosexuality negatively impacting their desire to combat homophobic bullying are unfounded; from the Pope on down it appears it is both condemned and actively discouraged.


  • #404
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I'm going way off topic here but that's still trying to have it both ways.

    It just reminds me of the mentality that "helped" "fallen women" in the past.

    Hypocrisy like that can cause serious problems.

    You can't really put someone in a position where some aspect of their being, that is totally acceptable in civil law and normal society, is being condemned as sinful.

    Being gay does actually involve an attraction to the same gender and wanting to get physical with them. It's not an abstract philosophical stance and is as hardwired to your brain as breathing and eating.

    So, to put someone in a position where you're asking them to deny something and repress something just makes absolutely no sense.

    This is why I think most religions are bonkers!
    It's all condemn, oppress, sacrifice, control and dressing this up as "love" through some rather amazing feats of philosophical acrobatics!

    Seems to be be one thing that unites all the major religions that came out of the Middle East.

    I just find it difficult to believe that an organisation with those views of homosexuality could possibly have a gay friendly environment. Just does not add up.


  • #405
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Absolam wrote: »
    But they're not tins of baked beans, they're people. Unlike tins of baked beans, regardless of the label you put on them they are capable of describing themselves.

    Who labels the tins is irrelevant in my analogy. If the label doesn't match the contents then the label is meaningless and useless.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, you got there in the end so I guess that's what counts.

    So you admit to wasting everyones time, some progress finally.
    Absolam wrote: »
    even the Heinz of your example isn't going to say the description they choose is inaccurate...

    Because it would cost them to do so, just like it would cost the RCC to tell people they aren't really catholic.


  • #406
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    So to bong or not to bong...

    Whatever about the slightly bizzare and insulting suggestion to broadcast a non religious Angulus on RTE television, how exactly are they going to spin this on radio?

    Remixed Angulus for everyone ?!?

    Maybe someone can beatbox and rap over it some days and a trance remix other days?


    RTE : this is a bit of a joke and it's actually offensive to those of us looking towards a secular Ireland where religion and state bodies are not merged together and also probably offensive to Catholics to whom the Angulus is something sacred and not be messed about with.

    Either have the Angulus, grow a pair and take the flack for being a theocratic broadcaster from the 1950s or move with the times and ditch it.

    Watering it down is just weird.


  • #407
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well no, not really. I'm not arguing the semantics of your question; you're asking me to provide an analysis of the Nicene Creed without providing me a reason for doing so, and I'm trying to understand from you why you're doing so.
    Or, as you put it, I'm not questioning the relevance of the reference I brought in; I already demonstrated it's relevance to the question you asked. I am, however, questioning the relevance of your questions about the content and purpose of a document beyond the reference I made to it. I'm quite happy to discuss my own reference, which was that Catholic is one of the four marks of the Church set out in the Nicene Creed; not, you'll notice, that professing the Nicene Creed is a requisite of being Catholic, which is what you appear to be trying to infer was the purpose of my reference (I say appear, because you're not being terribly forthcoming with your answers).
    Would taking the reference I offered and trying to make it appear to be a different argument so that you can refute it, be something that you would consider strawmanning by any chance?

    I didn't actually quote the Nicene Creed, I quoted the Catechism, but I linked the Nicene Creed for you. Regardless, I don't think the fact that I linked it (or even if I had quoted it) puts me under any obligation to analyse it on your behalf, does it?

    So... you asked for an actual papal decree or official vatican document of what the catholic church says "catholic" means.
    I provided an answer; including a link to an official vatican document which specifically includes the Catholic Church's answer to the question "What does Catholic mean?".

    How exactly is providing precisely what you asked for 'trying to derail a discussion on what a catholic is supposed to be'?

    I will admit, the attempt to slide in 'a direct official RCC document, recited every mass!' as if the Nicene Creed document isn't actually a different one from the one recited in every Mass (remember, you yourself actually said it's the Apostles Creed; a direct official RCC document I haven't actually mentioned until now), and to pretend that this is unassailable proof of something unspecified, is certainly ballsy.
    You also seem to have seamlessly transitioned from what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, to what a catholic is supposed to be, but we can probably take it that's because I provided you an answer to what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, and you didn't like it?

    With regards to your triumphal assertion that the Nicene Creed, like the Apostles Creed is a declaration of faith used by the church, i.e. a list of things that the followers declare faith in, can I draw your attention to the difference between:
    'a list of things that the followers declare faith in'
    and
    'a list of things that Catholics are required to declare faith in in order to be Catholics'
    Whilst the Nicene Creed, like the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed is an example of the former, none of these are examples of the latter.
    Since we were discussing what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, and not what Catholics can do in church, I think the 2nd list would be a tad more relevant than the 1st? I don't know if
    It.
    Would.
    Be.
    Glorious!
    but it would be relevant.....

    Wow, you are really panicing aren't you? :pac:
    You brought up the Nicene Creed, but it's my job to explain why it is relevant?
    I ask a few very short and simple questions that you keep skirting and outright avoiding, but it's me who is not forthcoming in my answers?
    Who exactly do you think you are fooling with this crap?


  • #408
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The argument against having anything sectarian on a public broadcaster is apparent. But I'm not seeing the argument that the agelus is sectarian.

    You glide rather glibly between saying that the Angelus is Catholic and saying that it is sectarian. "Catholic" does not equal "sectarian" any more than "Jewish" or "humanist" equals sectarian. A public service broadcaster should cover a diversity of perspectives on religious questions (including humanist, sceptical, atheist, etc perspectives). I don't see that you can arbitrarily pick one set of perspectives and label them "sectarian". Is it "sectarian" if RTE broadcasts a Methodist communion service or Jewish passover celebration, or if they cover a humanist conference or offer airtime to an Atheist spokesperson? If none of those are "sectarian", why is the angelus "sectarian"?

    What is the point in posters pointing out, time and again, that the Angelus is not a broadcast about a religion, but a broadcast on behalf of a (specific) religion if you are just going to pretend like the said nothing? How exactly can discussion work if you are just going to outright ignore the points you don't like?

    The angelus is not a documentary about religion, it's not a perspective or discussion on religion, it's not a once off or yearly broadcast of a religous observance to coincide with a religious festival. It is an advertisment, a daily call to prayer, given for free at peak time everyday, for one specific religion.


  • #409
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I'm going way off topic here but that's still trying to have it both ways. It just reminds me of the mentality that "helped" "fallen women" in the past. Hypocrisy like that can cause serious problems.
    I don't think so; again I think you're applying your perspective to the Church's position and coming up with hypocrisy simply because it's at odds with your perspective. For it to be hypocritical it has to be at odds with the Church's own perspective, and it evidently isn't. To be fair, they
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    You can't really put someone in a position where some aspect of their being, that is totally acceptable in civil law and normal society, is being condemned as sinful.
    You're suggesting that what is acceptable in civil law and society should be somehow connected to what is sinful. Why?
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Being gay does actually involve an attraction to the same gender and wanting to get physical with them. It's not an abstract philosophical stance and is as hardwired to your brain as breathing and eating. So, to put someone in a position where you're asking them to deny something and repress something just makes absolutely no sense.
    You're trying to present a reasoned argument to counter what God says? That makes absolutely no sense.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    This is why I think most religions are bonkers!
    It's all condemn, oppress, sacrifice, control and dressing this up as "love" through some rather amazing feats of philosophical acrobatics!
    Again, I think you're imposing your own perspective on something without giving consideration to the perspective of others. If no one had ever experienced anything positive as a result of religion, it probably would have stopped as soon as it started. The fact that religions survive and prosper is, contrary to popular A&A opinion, not because of the astonishing indoctrination provided by religious schools, but because people find something positive in it that adds something to their lives.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Seems to be be one thing that unites all the major religions that came out of the Middle East.
    I suspect you could probably find a few more if you made the effort.
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I just find it difficult to believe that an organisation with those views of homosexuality could possibly have a gay friendly environment. Just does not add up.
    Well, it's a bit of a leap from combating homophobic bullying to having a gay friendly environment, but I'd guess given the size and scope of the Church, you'll probably find both gay friendly and unfriendly environments within it. At least you know it's avowedly gay friendly, whilst being gay act unfriendly.


  • #410
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Oh I see the cut and analyse style is back again. That's not at all an attempt to drag the discussion in a particularly pedantic direction.


  • #411
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Ah sure it's Ireland - corruption is the norm.

    I just see this church involvement in state services as exactly that. It's no different from the banks' extreme proximity to the Government.

    Out state doesn't seem to understand why this kind of corporatism is a problem.

    The Angulus on state television are a minor annoyance but it sums the place up.

    Insiders, more insiders and control of things in non transparent processes by third parties outside the democratic process all behind closed doors.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Who labels the tins is irrelevant in my analogy. If the label doesn't match the contents then the label is meaningless and useless.
    But if whether the labels match the contents is a matter of your opinion vs theirs, it's only meaningless and useless to you. Everyone else is just fine.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So you admit to wasting everyones time, some progress finally.
    I'm afraid I can't take responsibility for how long it takes you to get something, sorry.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Because it would cost them to do so, just like it would cost the RCC to tell people they aren't really catholic.
    I'm sure you can imagine all sorts of motivations for people who disagree with you, but sometimes the simplest ones are the best; the Catholic Church would agree they're Catholics simply because they are. They don't need to lie, they don't need to worry about what you imagine it will cost them; if the people satisfy their criteria for being Catholics, they can simply agree that they are. And since they do satisfy the criteria, the Church has no need to worry about costs at all....


  • #413
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Wow, you are really panicing aren't you? :pac:
    Is that a strawman?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You brought up the Nicene Creed, but it's my job to explain why it is relevant?
    Actually, I asked you what the relevance of your questions about the content and purpose of the Nicene Creed beyond the reference I made to it was. It's the fourth sentence in the text you just quoted. If it helps to illustrate the difference between that and it being your job to explain why the Nicene Creed is relevant, I did also link to where I explained how the Nicene Creed was relevant to what I posted; that was the third sentence in the text you quoted.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I ask a few very short and simple questions that you keep skirting and outright avoiding, but it's me who is not forthcoming in my answers?
    They were indeed short and simple questions, yet you were a tad short on explanation for what their purpose was. Now, it does seem you were aiming for your big exposition which went rather awry, but if you can explain why you want me to analyse the Nicene Creed for you, maybe you can try again.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Who exactly do you think you are fooling with this crap?
    Not you that's for sure, eh?
    I mean... answering your questions directly? That's just derailing the discussion!
    Sticking to the original contention rather than altering it? Preposterous!
    Not quoting the right thing and forcing you to lie about it to make your point? Downright ungentlemanly!
    And to cap it all, drawing attention to you fudging things people can do with things people must do? Downright unacceptable!

    Yes I can see I'll never fool you with that kind of crap.....
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How exactly can discussion work if you are just going to outright ignore the points you don't like?
    But that...now that gave me a good laugh!


  • #414
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Absolam wrote: »
    Is there something I repeated? Pretty sure the post you just quoted was the first time:
    1) I asked you if you had ever met someone who told you they needed omnipotent sky fairies.
    2) I pointed out that no one appears to have said " we're the catholic majority, so you can fcuk off."
    3) I pointed out that thinking 7.6% should dictate to 84% in a democratic society is probably not going to be a popular notion.
    4) I asked you if the State should be there to ensure a minority can't dictate to the majority.
    5) I pointed out that contrary to you assertion Catholics don't have a right to hear their call to prayer.
    6) Asked you what you would like to do with the five and a half seconds of airtime atheism warrants based on the sixty seconds airtime Catholicism gets.
    7) I kindly answered your question about complicity in illegal activities.
    8) I asked to you what degree were you actually put in fear by my post.

    1. Yes many people the world over feel the need for omnipotent sky fairies and I've met plenty of them, they usually refer to them as God and there are many Gods, which is strange because most people claim that their God is the real God, who's right do you know? Anyway I'm not a believer though so I don't fully understand the need for an omnipotent sky fairy, perhaps you as a believer could better explain that to me?

    2. Been covered already, not interested in going around in circles.

    3. I believe you're 87.46583648% right on that, give or take 33.58476563R2D2%

    4. Same as 2.

    5. Expect for before the 6.01 news of course.

    6. Don't want to see 'atheism' on TV to balance out the angelus, again we've been through that.

    7. Thank you for that, you've been very helpful, it's always nice to hear from priggish people when you've committed heinous crimes :)

    8. I'm not in fear of your post, you just highlighted the penchant the religious have for attempting to spread fear. I actually loved that post because you showed yourself up, it was excellent, keep it coming :D


  • #415
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    If having the majority means you get more air time why dont we do this for politics? Should the parties with least support get less time?
    During the last referendum people were very quick to make complaints if they felt the minority side wasnt getting equal air time, suppose when it suits them its ok.

    I dont see where 7.6% are dictating to the rest.


  • #416
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Absolam wrote: »
    Just because it's a tautology doesn't make it not true.
    The point you responded to was "The thing is, though, as we can plainly see, there are lots of Catholics who don't think that that's what "Catholic" means. More to the point, that's not what the Catholic church thinks, or says, that "Catholic" means." So, if 84% of respondants felt that being Catholic meant something different to them than it does to you, it doesn't negate the fact that they identify themselves as Catholic, regardless of whether you think they deserve to, or should, be considered Catholics.

    Well, you were asking for an actual papal decree or official vatican document of what the catholic church says "catholic" means, so that was what I provided (you're welcome by the way), but no, accepting the Nicene Creed isn't a condition of being a part of the Church. To be a part of the Catholic Church, one need only be baptised in the Catholic Church, or be baptised a Christian and enter the Catholic Church by profession of faith and formal reception. To avoid any additional confusion, since the Nicene Creed is considered a profession of faith, the statement "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." is considered sufficient profession for Christians becoming part of the Church.

    Just one minor point here.

    Self-identification is not something which is relevant to this debate. Just because someone says they're a catholic doesn't make them one. I could claim to be a vegetarian, but if I do so while eating an XL Bacon Double Cheese Burger then my statement is inherently untrue. This is because vegetarianism has a specified meaning. Catholicism on a theological and a practical basis carries specified meanings and requirements.

    With regard to theology, imagine if you're a catholic and someone asks you what the difference between catholicism and protestantism is. This is a difficult question if self-identification is your sole arbiter of being catholic. Catholicism is the belief that the Church (i.e. the bishops and pope) in conjunction with sacred scripture and tradition are the sole authority in matters of faith. In other words, if you're a protestant then you read the bible, believe in Jesus and otherwise make up your own mind. If you're catholic then you believe what the church teaches about religion.

    On a practical level, this salvation through the church idea comes out in the precepts of the church and the magisterium. The precepts are the minimum requirements that each faithful catholic must obey:

    "The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:     The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.
    The second precept ("You shall confess your sins at least once a year") ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness.
    The third precept ("You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season") guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.
    The fourth precept ("You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church") ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.
    The fifth precept ("You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church") means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.
    The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities."



    Then there is the magisterium, which basically is the doctrinal hierarchy of the church, something explained in more detail here.
    The magisterium ranges from ordinary magisterium which cover rules that Catholics are required to obey, even though they may disagree with the rules to ex cathedra, which requires that catholics not only obey the rule but also believe that the rule is right and good.
    Let's take contraception as an example. Contraception is, according to the magisterium, intrinsically immoral and constitutes a grave sin. So faithful catholics are not only required to refrain from using condoms but also to believe that condoms are bad. Now, almost all catholics break this rule to some degree, whether it is the spirit or the letter of the law. So the question is, if you don't agree with the teachings of the church, to what extent are you really catholic. If you're a member of the Man Utd. supporters club but you think that the best team are Chelsea, then to what extent are you really a Man Utd. supporter.


  • #417
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Absolam wrote: »
    But if whether the labels match the contents is a matter of your opinion vs theirs, it's only meaningless and useless to you. Everyone else is just fine.

    The whole point of the label is to describe the contents. If the label doesn't do that, then it is useless.
    Absolam wrote: »
    the Catholic Church would agree they're Catholics simply because they are.

    The catholic church agree they are catholic because if they consistently applied there own doctrine, they would decimate their numbers in Ireland. The RCC is as hard on their doctrine as they think they environment allows, hence in the west the pope might ask "Who am I to judge gay people?" whereas in somewhere like the Phillipines he will claim that "[Sexuality, marriage and the family] realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God's plan for creation".


  • #418
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Absolam wrote: »
    Is that a strawman?

    Actually, I asked you what the relevance of your questions about the content and purpose of the Nicene Creed beyond the reference I made to it was. It's the fourth sentence in the text you just quoted. If it helps to illustrate the difference between that and it being your job to explain why the Nicene Creed is relevant, I did also link to where I explained how the Nicene Creed was relevant to what I posted; that was the third sentence in the text you quoted.

    They were indeed short and simple questions, yet you were a tad short on explanation for what their purpose was. Now, it does seem you were aiming for your big exposition which went rather awry, but if you can explain why you want me to analyse the Nicene Creed for you, maybe you can try again.
    Not you that's for sure, eh?
    I mean... answering your questions directly? That's just derailing the discussion!
    Sticking to the original contention rather than altering it? Preposterous!
    Not quoting the right thing and forcing you to lie about it to make your point? Downright ungentlemanly!
    And to cap it all, drawing attention to you fudging things people can do with things people must do? Downright unacceptable!

    Yes I can see I'll never fool you with that kind of crap.....

    But that...now that gave me a good laugh!

    Again, putting all this effort into doing anything except answer a few very simple and short questions. It's clear you don't want discussion to continue on the Creeds because you know it will force to you admit that catholics are supposed to believe them, which contradicts your opening post.
    it's hilarious to watch you squirm.


  • #419
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't think so; again I think you're applying your perspective to the Church's position and coming up with hypocrisy simply because it's at odds with your perspective.

    No, I'm saying it's hypocrisy because they're feigning a stance by coming out with two completely incompatible messages.

    My perspective has little to do with it.

    To quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    hypocrisy noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\

    ": a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

    They're trying to have their cake and eat it.
    It's a bit like saying "I'm not xenophobic and many of my friends are Irish, lovely people but... I wouldn't want to actually sit next to one.."

    Likewise you can't really have a major problem with 'gay acts' and come out with statements like in the catechism describing gay people as "“intrinsically disordered” and messages describing Ireland's gay marriage referendum result as a "defeat for humanity" and then say you love gay people!?! -- My perspective is that I can see 'spin' from a mile off.

    I think trying to wrap the spin the Angelus into a pretend secular thing is also the height of hypocrisy and probably a bit blasphemous too.


  • #420
    tirchonaill86
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭tirchonaill86


    The angelus is part of the rock this country of ours is built on...its faith. You are entitled to whatever you believe in or choose not to believe in. That is your decision and i respect that. But whoever wants to challenge parts of what Ireland was built on can go somewhere else as far as I'm concerned. Is it that painful for you guys to respect our one minute of silent reverence? This is Ireland....we fought and died for this beautiful christian country of ours. We welcome all faiths or lack of it as equals but please respect whats important to us. God bless.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,723 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement