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.

Options
1…1314161819…25

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    padohaodha wrote: »
    I thought the it was decorum onboards to play the topic and not the man.ure just scoring points against a poster

    Ok well do you want to answer the questions I raised over Gods and I promise in advance I won't play you at all.....unless you of course you decide that your God has a place in my life, then it's open season, fair is fair.

    Why do people feel the need for a God? Why are there so many Gods? Which God is the real one? And do you believe in all the God's?


  • Options
    #453
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    So now you want to ask the questions and answer them?
    Nope, just trying to get to the yes or no answer, since you're avoiding answering the question. It was pretty simple:
    Whether or not they need omnipotent sky fairies is probably up to them, but I've never met anyone who said they did, have you?
    It's very interesting that you think many people the world over feel the need for omnipotent sky fairies and you've met plenty of them, but the question was whether anyone has told you they need omnipotent sky fairies.
    Whilst I'm waiting I'm more than happy to answer your questions (I'm a nice person you see);
    I agree that most monotheists claim that their God is the real God, but I'm afraid I've no idea who's right.
    I understand that you're not a believer and don't fully understand the need for an omnipotent sky fairy, but I'm afraid I can't better explain it to you; I've never met anyone who told me they needed an omnipotent sky fairy so I've never had the opportunity to enquire about it.
    I suspect, though I'm not an authority, that there are so many gods because there are so many people that believe in them.
    No, I don't believe in all those other gods.
    So.. on we go.
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    I told you I have meet people who feel the need for omnipotent sky fairies, I would say most people who believe in god without a shred of evidence must feel the need for one otherwise what's the point in believing in an all powerful, unproven sky fairy?
    But you haven't yet told me if any of them told you they need an omnipotent sky fairy. Because, and you can probably see where I'm going here, if they didn't tell you, aren't you just making it all up?
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    And as I asked you before which god is the real one? why are there so many gods anyway? and do you believe in all those other gods?
    You did. And whilst you've been avoiding answering my question, I've been courteous enough to answer yours above.
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    You seem to have a very fundamental problem understanding the idea of a state being neutral so it's fair for all, either that or I was right when I said you have the 'we're the catholic majority so you can fcuk off' attitude.
    Not at all, I'm 100% behind the State being neutral. I'm 0% behind the idea that if 7.6% don't want it, 84% can't have it though. If you don't want broadcast programming that's relevant to your philosophical position that's fine, but how does the State being neutral mean the State has to enforce your choice on others? I think if you're free to participate and choose not to, then it's poor form to whinge you're being told to fcuk off because everyone else participates anyway. Actually, it's not just poor form, it's downright dishonest.
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Listen I really don't care which of those 2 options are correct, I am 99.46457346% sure give or take 0.24727% that it's one or the other though.
    Or, both of your propositions are in error.
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    So feel free to have the last word on this issue, I know people like you blow their load of getting the last word.
    That's pretty crude, but I think you're right to take some time out to think about this.
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Well that just means mission failed for you so because the attempt to spread fear was there, and spreading fear is the foundation which religion is built on.
    Was it? It certainly didn't come from me. Would you say it was there in the same way that people say they need omnipotent sky fairies?
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    You highlighted that even more by the way I caught you editing the post to add in a few more sentences (rather than just correcting an error for example, but I'm sure you don't make errors anyway), it was great, someone who fancies himself getting caught with the trousers down :)
    When you say 'caught' would you say the word 'saw' would serve just as well? It's just that when we edit our posts, they're marked as 'Last edited by' and a timestamp. It's not exactly a secret, so I think 'caught' may be overplaying your detective skills a little. I like to edit my posts quite often, and it's not at all prohibited. If I want to point out why I edited my posts, I can even write a little line in the reason for editing box. Since I edited my post at 27-06-2015 at 14:47 and you didn't reply until 27-06-2015, 15:20 I don't think you were misled in any way as to the contents, were you?


  • Options
    #454
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    tirchonaill86 wrote: »
    I most certainly am not advocating any form of cleansing. I am absolutely against any form of oppressive violence or indeed forced deportations. I am merely stating that as part of our cultural and religious identity, i find it extremely disrespectful for people whether they are Irish or indeed foreign to try to remove what is important to the majority of Irish people. We don't own very much of anything anymore here in Ireland and you want to take away the small moment of the day that we can feel at peace with ourselves in reflection. This is our history. This is the very soul of what it means to be Irish for the majority. This is the link to our past and that past isn't all dark. I am not asking anyone to leave, but i am saying that if you want to come here of different faith or you want to stay with none, you need to respect the wishes of the majority of our society. To do anything else would be social deviance and not congruent with the values of a predominantly catholic country. Im all for respecting other faiths/religions, and i don't mind facilitating other faiths wishes, thats what makes me christian but come on now space-time i don't know what your main issue is with a catholics small moment of reflection? Whats your problem with it may i ask? I respect an atheists right to their own views but they must also respect our rights as believers. Its really simple. If they don't, well maybe they are in the wrong place or need to have a good long think to themselves. Because I'm just thinking of them out of love, its not very healthy if they feel that strongly about these issues to be listening to the bells at six o clock. But maybe they could change the channel for a minute? i can't possibly accept how one could feel so offended at another human beings right to reflect on their faith. And also when i said they can go somewhere else, maybe what i should have said is they may need to go somewhere else for their own sakes as suppressed emotion or unresolved conflict is a major risk factor in premature morbidity. So i apologise for my wording it may have caused offence or been deemed aggressive so i am sorry for that. I just want everyone to get along, love one another as human beings number one, and we can all practice or faiths or lack of here in Ireland, while respecting the people that defended this island and sacrificed their lives under oppression, forced slavery and ethnic cleansing regimes. Surely you guys would respect the rock that this country was built on, surely you would have love for the men, women and children that went before us by allowing us to carry on their traditions and let us keep what we hold dear in our hearts ourselves??? We have to separate the mistakes of the catholic church from this also, their leadership was obviously flawed but our faith remains our faith. Goodnight and God bless Ireland from all threats great and small.

    1. What do you mean "we don't own much of anything" ?

    Other than 90%+ of the schools a big chunk of the hospitals, prayers before every political meeting and practically running the state as a theocracy for decades

    If by "we" you mean the Catholic Church you're a highly privileged organisation not some put upon minority.

    2. Slavery?! - a certain group of religious orders actually managed to go that route in the 20th century by forcing women into indentured servitude as laundry slaves.

    3. The whole concept of a secular state is that everyone has equal rights to be religious or not to be religious. The state and its services should remain neutral on this. That doesn't impact Catholic rights it simply prevents any religion from being de facto the "state religion"

    We do not have a state religion, many of our ancestors fought long and hard to get a way from a situation where they were a vaguely tolerated minority in a state that established the Anglican Church as the official religion.

    All this stuff like the Angulus on RTE, the prayers at the Dail and Seanad, councillors forcing crucifixes into council chambers, prayers before council meetings, the public school system being almost entirely religious and so on shows that we have no concept of republican values and that we've actually allowed a de facto established church to develop.

    4. You absolutely did state that anyone who questioned this should leave.

    Maybe I will leave! I'm absolutely sick of this kind of attitude. At present a member of my Irish family is facing difficulty getting their kid into Irish public school and being put under huge pressure to fake baptise them. I don't think that's acceptable in a country that claims to be a place of freedom, equality and democracy.

    5. There's this wonderful secular concept called paragraphs!


  • Options
    #455
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Absolam wrote: »
    In fairness this particular thread of the discussion stems directly from a specific assertion about self identification by Nicolas Cage:

    And in that assertion he is correct. There are plenty of people out there who identify as catholic who have had children outside marriage, who use condoms, support gay-marriage, are pro-choice and hold any number of views that the church specifically teaches against. However, these people for the most part are unaware of what the term catholic (or protestant for that matter) actually mean, and therefore they don't see any dissonance in identifying as catholic. If these people knew what catholic meant and as Nicolas points out were honest with themselves, then they wouldn't identify as catholic.

    Absolam wrote: »
    So whilst it may not be all that relevant to the wider debate about the Angelus, self identification is the crux of this particular (sub-sub) discussion, and it seems to have enough relevence to exercise some opinions. I agree, there are definitive conditions set out for what is required to be a Catholic, and I did offer an explanation of what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church in answer to Marks point that the word Catholicism means nothing to everyone if it can mean anything to anyone.

    Except that in your definition you talk about membership of the catholic church, baptism etc. but there is a difference between being a member of the church and being a catholic. One is a single temporal event and the other is a continuing mental state. You can be baptised and get communion and be inducted into the church, but if you don't believe what they teach then you aren't really a catholic.

    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't disagree that the Catholic Church is the ultimate arbiter of who is Catholic. However, the question (so far at least) has not been to what extent you are really Catholic, it has been whether or not you are really Catholic.
    I agree that Catholics can exist in states of grave sin, can be excommunicated, and can be in greater or lesser degrees of communion with the Church. But in all of these states, and whether to the most tenuous or fullest extent, they remain Catholics.

    There is a difference here between someone who is in a state of sin because of, let's say, moral weakness and someone who doesn't believe. A person could be a faithful catholic i.e. in the sense of believing the message of the church but falls short of the expectations with regard to sin. On the other hand a person who doesn't believe the message and doesn't intend to meet the requirements is by definition not a catholic.


  • Options
    #456
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    tirchonaill86 wrote: »
    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.

    I'm glad that things are so black and white in your world, but here in reality, things are more complicated than that.

    Firstly, the Angelus is one minute of publicly funded airtime. A minute, btw with a commercial value of €11,000. That's €11,000 worth of time which is funded by the taxpayer, that mean's your money and mine. Something that is constitutionally prohibited under Article 44.2.2

    Secondly, this isn't a christian country, it's a secular republic, albeit one with lot's of christians living in it.

    Finally, an appeal to tradition is never a good base on which to build an argument. Whatever the origins of the country might be, the topic under discussion is whether the Angelus should continue to be broadcast, should continue to be publicly funded in a secular state with an increasingly diverse populace with different religious backgrounds, so tradition is pretty irrelevant in this case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #458
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    tirchonaill86 wrote: »
    I am a beacon of enlightenment in a dark place.... I have no problem sitting on buddhas lap for a selfie. I have no problem hanging out with muhammad, as long as its doesn't involve ak s and dynamite, or having ice cream with a protestant.

    So you've no problem making fun of other people's religion but feel that your religion (and its call to prayer) should be protected. How very enlightened of you!


  • Options
    #459
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    There are many origins of this country, both the recent iteration of the Republic of Ireland and the longer historical origins of Ireland itself.

    The only common thread is we all live on this island and consider ourselves Irish.

    We've had druidic religions, norse religions, christianity of a few flavours simultaneously, we've had long periods of enforced religion through the British system and an established church both catholic and then anglican after the reformation in England, followed by a 20th century reactionary period where the Catholic Church was swapped into the same position the Anglican Church had been in the 1800s.

    In terms of the modern state, it was founded by a group of people all of whom wanted independence from the UK but not necessarily all for the same reasons.

    We had:
    - republicans (in the French revolutionary sense) who wanted Government by the people, for the people and of the people.
    - liberals and democrats who wanted to see an end to a lot of the heavy police state type stuff.
    - socialists who wanted to bring about some kind of social democracy.
    - feminists demanding equality and women's rights led by some extremely enlightened individuals for that era.
    - conservative Catholics who wanted to establish a "Catholic Ireland"
    - cultural nationalists who wanted to revive the language and instil a very strong sense of Irish culture.
    - pacifists who didn't like the British Empire and endless wars.
    - fascists who wanted to implement a highly controlled state - it was popular in the early 20th century.
    - people who saw economic opportunities in breaking away from Britain.

    The list is endless and they weren't all catholics either, nor were all of them necessarily wonderfully noble movements either. We had a few dodgy bits in the mix at that time too.

    The reality was that after the state gained independence the conservative catholics and cultural nationalists seemed to grab the reigns of power here and we had a long period where all the other aspects that made up Ireland's national identity were just cast aside or spent all of their time focused on the Northern Ireland issues in some cases.

    I actually think the way the feminist movement was just thrown under a bus, having been absolutely key to the whole independence struggle in the early days here was one hell of a betrayal for example.
    We went from a situation where we'd the first female Government minister in any modern democracy to a state where women were consigned to the kitchen sink, contraception was banned and rights were rapidly eroded in favour of some kind of "Catholic womanhood" view.

    ...


    Conflating Irish national identity and catholic identity is a very narrow minded and also quite exclusionary thing to do.

    Looking at Ireland's history through Catholic tinted spectacles is really to ignore a huge part of our history and a huge chunk of what actually makes us "Ireland."

    There's a whole other bit of Ireland and another set of identities up North too who often don't remotely fit that "holy catholic" model either and pushing it has actually served to do a lot of damage in terms of driving divides too.

    If any of you ever have any notions of ever having a United Ireland, I can assure you of one thing, religion will have to fully come out of the mix at state level for that to ever even remotely be a possibility.


  • Options
    #460
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Absolam wrote: »
    Then perhaps you shouldn't use a label that's at odds with what the authority on the subject claims is the case; a claim which is backed up by the tins themselves?

    If the label doesn't reflect the content of the tins then it is useless as a label, regardless of whether the authority (to keep their authority) or the tins (to satisfy their indoctrinated insecurities) apply the label.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Which part of Catholic doctrine would prohibit any person baptised in the Catholic Church from being Catholic, specifically?

    The parts quoted in oldrnwisr's post for a start.


  • Options
    #461
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    And in that assertion he is correct. There are plenty of people out there who identify as catholic who have had children outside marriage, who use condoms, support gay-marriage, are pro-choice and hold any number of views that the church specifically teaches against. However, these people for the most part are unaware of what the term catholic (or protestant for that matter) actually mean, and therefore they don't see any dissonance in identifying as catholic. If these people knew what catholic meant and as Nicolas points out were honest with themselves, then they wouldn't identify as catholic.
    I disagree; the Catholic Church doesn't exclude Catholics from the Church for having children outside marriage, using condoms, supporting gay-marriage, being pro-choice or holding any number of views that the church specifically teaches against. If you think that they might choose not to identify as Catholics if they were more aware of various teachings of the Church, that's fair enough, that's a matter of self-identification. The Catholic Church accepts them as Catholic whether they are devout, indifferent, excommunicated or even lapsed.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Except that in your definition you talk about membership of the catholic church, baptism etc. but there is a difference between being a member of the church and being a catholic. One is a single temporal event and the other is a continuing mental state. You can be baptised and get communion and be inducted into the church, but if you don't believe what they teach then you aren't really a catholic.
    Again, I have to disagree. Firstly, I didn't talk about membership of the church, and for a good reason; the Church doesn't claim to have members. A person is a part of the Church, not a member, and I'll come back to that momentarily. A baptised Catholic can be lapsed, excommunicated and heretical all of their life, and still be a Catholic on their deathbed. As far as the Church is concerned they were never not a Catholic.

    Being baptised is a single temporal event, but it is an event that incorporates the recipient into the Church, and seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark of his belonging to Christ. The Church admits of no circumstance where the recipient of baptism ceases to be part of the body of the Church, so as long as a person thinks they're Catholic and the Church agrees, whether or not their continuing mental state is entirely compatible with current doctrine and dogma only attests to their degree of communion with the Church, not to whether they remain part of the Church.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    There is a difference here between someone who is in a state of sin because of, let's say, moral weakness and someone who doesn't believe. A person could be a faithful catholic i.e. in the sense of believing the message of the church but falls short of the expectations with regard to sin. On the other hand a person who doesn't believe the message and doesn't intend to meet the requirements is by definition not a catholic.
    I don't disagree that there's a difference between the two, but it doesn't rise to being or not being Catholic,only to the degree of communion with the Church. A person who doesn't believe the message and doesn't intend to meet the requirements is still a Catholic, they are simply 'a lost sheep' as the parable would have it. They can take their place in the Church at any time, receive absolution and be forgiven all sins, just like Catholics who live all their lives believing the message and meeting the requirements. That's why Baptism is never repeated; incorporation into Christ is permanent according to the Church.

    You've used the term 'by definition' and I think that's where this all started, the substance of this is really, "What is the definition of a Catholic"; specifically (to my mind anyway) the definition of being a part of the Catholic Church, distinguishing it from the catholic, since pagans, Muslims, even atheists can be catholic. For that I would look to the Catholic Church, as I said in my initial posts, since Mark asked for an official definition. The Catechism says:
    III. THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC
    What does "catholic" mean?
    830 The word "catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole." The Church is catholic in a double sense:
    First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church."307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation"308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.
    831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:310
    All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God's will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one. . . . The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.311

    So the Church says it is Catholic. And it says that a person who is baptised in the Church is incorporated into it. So as long as there is a Catholic Church, a person baptised in it is Catholic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Absolam wrote: »
    So when I answer your questions, I'm derailing the discussion.
    When I question your questions, I'm avoiding the discussion.
    I think you may be a little conflicted on what it is to participate in a discussion...

    Answering a question involves answer a question, not deflecting by asking stupid questions of you own.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Hmm. Are we now moving the goalposts again to what Catholics are supposed to believe, instead of what a catholic is supposed to be, or the original what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church? I don't particularly mind discussing the Creeds, I don't even mind agreeing that Catholics should probably subscribe to and even profess quite a lot of what they say. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't contradict any of my posts. Not professing the Creeds won't make someone who is Catholic not Catholic.

    How is it moving the goalposts? How can you be a catholic if you don't believe what a catholic is supposed to believe? You can't. It's like my tin of beans analogy: a tin of beans is only a tin of beans if it actually contains beans, regardless of what some for-profit company will say in order to keep it's followers happy.


  • Options
    #463
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If the label doesn't reflect the content of the tins then it is useless as a label, regardless of whether the authority (to keep their authority) or the tins (to satisfy their indoctrinated insecurities) apply the label.
    Then as I said, your label must reflect the contents of the tin; if you think the contents don't match what both the tins and the maker of the tins says is on there, you're probably thinking wrong.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The parts quoted in oldrnwisr's post for a start.
    Would you like to point them out? I can't see any part of Catholic doctrine in Oldrnwisrs post that prohibits any person baptised in the Catholic Church from being Catholic.


  • Options
    #464
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #465
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Absolam wrote: »
    Then as I said, your label must reflect the contents of the tin; if you think the contents don't match what both the tins and the maker of the tins says is on there, you're probably thinking wrong.

    Except I'm not wrong, as the labels don't match the contents, neither in my analogy nor for the majority of so called catholics in this country.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Would you like to point them out? I can't see any part of Catholic doctrine in Oldrnwisrs post that prohibits any person baptised in the Catholic Church from being Catholic.

    I did point them out, I quoted his post which is full of them.


  • Options
    #466
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Answering a question involves answer a question, not deflecting by asking stupid questions of you own.
    So, to be clear, if you ask a question, and I answer it, that's derailing the discussion.
    If I question your questions, that's avoiding the discussion.
    And if I ask a question, that's both stupid, and deflecting.
    Again, I have to say I think you're a little conflicted on what it is to participate in a discussion...
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How is it moving the goalposts? How can you be a catholic if you don't believe what a catholic is supposed to believe? You can't. It's like my tin of beans analogy: a tin of beans is only a tin of beans if it actually contains beans, regardless of what some for-profit company will say in order to keep it's followers happy.
    It's moving the goalposts by: asking what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, what a catholic is supposed to be, then when engaged on the subject changing the question to what a catholic is supposed to be, then when engaged changing the question to what Catholics are supposed to believe. I did say that. What a Catholic is supposed to believe, is not the same as what a Catholic is required to believe in order to be a Catholic. I think I alluded to that when were discussing you interchanging the Catechism, the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed, remember?


  • Options
    #467
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    If they leave, the Catholic Church considers them to be Catholic; lapsed, or not in communion or heretical, or maybe nothing because they haven't done anything to earn a label.
    Of course, if they leave, what the Catholic Church considers them to be doesn't matter to them, because they've left.


  • Options
    #468
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Absolam wrote: »
    Nope, just trying to get to the yes or no answer, since you're avoiding answering the question. It was pretty simple:
    Whether or not they need omnipotent sky fairies is probably up to them, but I've never met anyone who said they did, have you?
    It's very interesting that you think many people the world over feel the need for omnipotent sky fairies and you've met plenty of them, but the question was whether anyone has told you they need omnipotent sky fairies.

    Didn't know you wanted a Yes or No answer to that, I have no problem giving you one, No, I don't recall anybody specifically telling me they needed 'an omnipotent sky fairy', but I never said anybody told me that. I've come to that conclusion myself by what I've seen and heard from religious people over the years, I was a believer myself you know (most people are by default because the state isn't neutral) and my parents still are. But I will admit I may be wrong, never trust anybody or anything who claims their word is gospel! I'm just trying to ask you why you feel the need for an unproven God? and if you don't need him then why have one? I don't fully understand it, help me along here for jaysus sake.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Whilst I'm waiting I'm more than happy to answer your questions (I'm a nice person you see);

    If you don't say so yourself.
    Absolam wrote: »
    I agree that most monotheists claim that their God is the real God, but I'm afraid I've no idea who's right.
    I understand that you're not a believer and don't fully understand the need for an omnipotent sky fairy, but I'm afraid I can't better explain it to you; I've never met anyone who told me they needed an omnipotent sky fairy so I've never had the opportunity to enquire about it.
    I suspect, though I'm not an authority, that there are so many gods because so many people that believe in them.
    No, I don't believe in all those other gods.
    So.. on we go.

    Why are there so many Gods though, just saying "that there are so many gods because so many people that believe in them" is a non answer, how did we end up with so many Gods? And if you don't know which God is the real one then why pick any one God to worship, to quote the great Homer Simpson = "What if we picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder." :)
    Absolam wrote: »
    Not at all, I'm 100% behind the State being neutral.

    Good, so am I, now prove it by calling for a secular Ireland, where nobodies religious beliefs or lack of them get preferential treatment.
    Absolam wrote: »
    That's pretty crude, but I think you're right to take some time out to think about this.

    HAAA! if I'm taking time out to think I'll probably be thinking about something that will aid me to blow my load :) Come on don't take me too seriously on this point, can't be serious the whole time, I'm only yanking your chain.
    Absolam wrote: »
    When you say 'caught' would you say the word 'saw' would serve just as well? It's just that when we edit our posts, they're marked as 'Last edited by' and a timestamp. It's not exactly a secret, so I think 'caught' may be overplaying your detective skills a little. I like to edit my posts quite often, and it's not at all prohibited. If I want to point out why I edited my posts, I can even write a little line in the reason for editing box. Since I edited my post at 27-06-2015 at 14:47 and you didn't reply until 27-06-2015, 15:20 I don't think you were misled in any way as to the contents, were you?

    No, caught is the word, would it not be better just to hold your hand up at this stage, just for your sake not mine, I'm enjoying watching you trying to explain yourself, again I say keep it coming :)


  • Options
    #469
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Absolam wrote: »
    I disagree; the Catholic Church doesn't exclude Catholics from the Church for having children outside marriage, using condoms, supporting gay-marriage, being pro-choice and hold any number of views that the church specifically teaches against. If you think that they might choose not to identify as Catholics if they were more aware of various teachings of the Church, that's fair enough, that's a matter of self-identification. The Catholic Church accepts them as Catholic whether they are devout, indifferent, excommunicated or even lapsed.

    I'm sure the church does accept these people. The more people they ostensibly represent, the more power and influence they can attempt to wield. However, my point was not about how the Church views its relationships with people who flout its rules, my point was about how people who flout the rules ought to view their relationship with the church. As I said the last time, if you have sex outside marriage but still believe its sinful and atone for it, that's one thing, but if you think that sex outside marriage is perfectly OK then that's something else entirely. At some point a person who holds views like the above and knows what catholic means should begin to ask themselves whether they should honestly be calling themselves catholic.

    The problem however, is that most people are born into a religion. In this country, they are born, baptised really quickly, indoctrinated through the school system and most never begin to question the matter. For them, questioning being catholic would be like questioning being male or being Irish. It simply wouldn't occur to them that catholic carries a specified meaning.

    Absolam wrote: »
    Again, I have to disagree. Firstly, I didn't talk about membership of the church, and for a good reason; the Church doesn't claim to have members. A person is a part of the Church, not a member, and I'll come back to that momentarily. A baptised Catholic can be lapsed, excommunicated and heretical all of their life, and still be a Catholic on their deathbed. As far as the Church is concerned they were never not a Catholic.

    Actually what you said was: "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 most people being part of something and being a member of something are roughly synonymous, especially when that something is an organisation or club. If you said that you were part of the Munster Rugby Supporter's club then people would assume that you were a member. If you meant something different you should have specified that.

    Absolam wrote: »
    Being baptised is a single temporal event, but it is an event that incorporates the recipient into the Church, and seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark of his belonging to Christ. The Church admits of no circumstance where the recipient of baptism ceases to be part of the body of the Church, so as long as a person thinks they're Catholic and the Church agrees, whether or not their continuing mental state is entirely compatible with current doctrine and dogma only attests to their degree of communion with the Church, not to whether they remain part of the Church.

    Yes, from the church's point of view the person remains a catholic. But we are not talking about the church's view anymore than the person's perspective on the matter. We are talking about an objective assessment of whether the person's beliefs fit the definition of what it is to be catholic. To get back to the vegetarianism analogy, let's say that there's an international specifically vegetarian movement (like PETA, except less horrible). They could consider a person to be vegetarian from the moment they join regardless of what they do afterwards. Similarly, the person themselves could consider themselves vegetarian despite eating meat. However, a third party would not consider the person to be vegetarian because they don't fit the definition, i.e. they eat meat.

    As I've said, being a catholic means that you are entrusting the catholic church to interpret the will of God for you. As Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV (or what is now churchmilitant.tv) explained, just as the old testament ought to be read in light of the new testament so too should the new testament be read in light of the church. This is the fundamental difference between catholic and protestant and why people who don't believe what the church teaches ought not to identify as catholic.

    You see, if we were to look at catholic in terms of what you outlined in your post, specifically:

    "So the Church says it is Catholic. And that a person who is baptised in the Church is incorporated into it. So as long as there is a Catholic Church, a person baptised in it is Catholic."

    we can see that a person calling themselves catholic on the basis of being incorporated into the catholic church is an insufficient definition. It excludes the possibility of apostasy, it says nothing about what the person currently believes, which is the overall point in identifying as an adherent of a particular religion.


  • Options
    #470
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Except I'm not wrong, as the labels don't match the contents, neither in my analogy nor for the majority of so called catholics in this country.
    That's your opinion, which is unfortunately at odds with both theirs and the Catholic Church, who all say the label matches. Your belief in your own certitude may be as strong as any prophets, but I don't think you're going to convert all those Catholics to your point of view when you can't even convert me.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I did point them out, I quoted his post which is full of them.
    NO, you linked his post, and you didn't point out a single one. Have a look, your post is here.
    If I quote your post:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If the label doesn't reflect the content of the tins then it is useless as a label, regardless of whether the authority (to keep their authority) or the tins (to satisfy their indoctrinated insecurities) apply the label. The parts quoted in oldrnwisr's post for a start.
    You see you haven't pointed out even one piece of Catholic doctrine in Oldrnwisrs post that prohibits any person baptised in the Catholic Church from being Catholic. Would you like to try again?


  • Options
    #471
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Absolam wrote: »
    So, to be clear, if you ask a question, and I answer it, that's derailing the discussion.
    If I question your questions, that's avoiding the discussion.
    And if I ask a question, that's both stupid, and deflecting.
    Again, I have to say I think you're a little conflicted on what it is to participate in a discussion...

    You never, and still haven't, answered my questions. You responded with waffle at first and when I repeated or expanded upon them you responded by questioning my questions.
    Absolam wrote: »
    It's moving the goalposts by: asking what it takes to be a part of the Catholic Church, what a catholic is supposed to be, then when engaged on the subject changing the question to what a catholic is supposed to be, then when engaged changing the question to what Catholics are supposed to believe. I did say that. What a Catholic is supposed to believe, is not the same as what a Catholic is required to believe in order to be a Catholic. I think I alluded to that when were discussing you interchanging the Catechism, the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed, remember?

    You cannot be a catholic if you don't believe what a catholic is supposed to believe because that's what "catholic" is, a label for someone who believes catholic doctine. It's what makes them a catholic instead of a protestant or an anglican etc, it's what the label is for. People might not care because they are indoctrinated not to care, the RCC might not care because it would cost them to be consistent, but that doesn't change anything.

    The only one moving goalposts is you, except you can't even do that right.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Didn't know you wanted a Yes or No answer to that, I have no problem giving you one, No, I don't recall anybody specifically telling me they needed 'an omnipotent sky fairy', but I never said anybody told me that.
    That's all I was wondering. So we know you presume people need an omnipotent sky fairy, but haven't actually been told they do.
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    I'm just trying to ask you why you feel the need for an unproven God? and if you don't need him then why have one? I don't fully understand it, help me along here for jaysus sake.
    Well, what makes you think I do feel the need for an unproven God? Like those people you imagine need an omnipotent sky fairy, I haven't actually told you that. If you don't understand it, it maybe because you're starting from an assumption and jumping; try starting with facts?
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    If you don't say so yourself.
    But I do?
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Why are there so many Gods though, just saying "that there are so many gods because so many people that believe in them" is a non answer, how did we end up with so many Gods?
    Well, it might look better if I'd remembered to include all the words;
    I suspect that there are so many gods because there are so many people that believe in them. I did also point out that I'm not an authority.
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    And if you don't know which God is the real one then why pick any one God to worship, to quote the great Homer Simpson = "What if we picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder." :)
    I presume people pick the one that seems to suit them, which may well be part of the answer to your question about why there as so many Gods.
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Good, so am I, now prove it by calling for a secular Ireland, where nobodies religious beliefs or lack of them get preferential treatment.
    How does that prove it? Anyway, if you recall,quite some time ago I said that I never indicated that I believed the majority should get preferential treatment. I totally agree with proportional treatment for all; if Catholic programming gets 60 seconds then Atheist programming should definitely get 5.5 seconds.
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    HAAA! if I'm taking time out to think I'll probably be thinking about something that will aid me to blow my load :) Come on don't take me too seriously on this point, can't be serious the whole time, I'm only yanking your chain.
    Still pretty crude. Maybe take a little more time?
    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    No, caught is the word, would it not be better just to hold your hand up at this stage, just for your sake not mine, I'm enjoying watching you trying to explain yourself, again I say keep it coming :)
    Right... is there some sort of ritual we should observe? Every time we edit a post we should add a post expressing our shame at being caught editing by the insidious edit tag on our post or something?


  • Options
    #473
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Absolam wrote: »
    That's your opinion, which is unfortunately at odds with both theirs and the Catholic Church, who all say the label matches. Your belief in your own certitude may be as strong as any prophets, but I don't think you're going to convert all those Catholics to your point of view when you can't even convert me.

    If the label matched then the RCC wouldn't have to assure people they can use the label even though it doesn't match.
    If the label matched then you wouldn't be here arguing the label can be used based on arbitrary self-identification, you would demonstrate that it matches.
    Most "catholics" in this country use contraception, most have sex before marriage, 10% or so don't even beleive in god. Not despite knwoing the shouldn't, but because they don't care. The label demonstrably doesn't match the contents.

    And as for you being converted or not? You have shown in every thread you have entered that you aren't interested in discussion, only in stalling and derailing the thread, so why should I care what you think?
    Absolam wrote: »
    Would you like to try again?

    So now you want me to repeat other posters posts, to stall the thread? I don't need to try again, his post is full of them, he even has a big chunk of them in italics.


  • Options
    #474
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    I'm sure the church does accept these people. The more people they ostensibly represent, the more power and influence they can attempt to wield.
    In fairness that's another discussion, but I don't think there's a real basis for asserting that the Catholic Church modifys it's criteria for being part of it in order to give the appearance of greater numbers so that it can in some nebulous fashion acquire greater temporal power.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    However, my point was not about how the Church views its relationships with people who flout its rules, my point was about how people who flout the rules ought to view their relationship with the church. As I said the last time, if you have sex outside marriage but still believe its sinful and atone for it, that's one thing, but if you think that sex outside marriage is perfectly OK then that's something else entirely. At some point a person who holds views like the above and knows what catholic means should begin to ask themselves whether they should honestly be calling themselves catholic.
    However, how you think people ought to view their relationship with the Church doesn't actually define their relationship with the Church. It's defined by them and the Church. The Church will never say they ought not to have a relationship with the Church, because it knows, straight from God, that these people are part of it. If a person says they oughtn't to be Catholic based on what they're doing or have done fair enough; they've made a decision to end their relationship, even though the Church will always accept them back, knowing they never really left. But your thinking that the relationship really doesn't exist doesn't make them not part of the relationship; that's entirely up to them.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    The problem however, is that most people are born into a religion. In this country, they are born, baptised really quickly, indoctrinated through the school system and most never begin to question the matter. For them, questioning being catholic would be like questioning being male or being Irish. It simply wouldn't occur to them that catholic carries a specified meaning.
    That's not a problem for either the Catholic Church or the Catholic though; it's a problem for those who would like it if Catholics gave being Catholic a bit of thought rather than more or less just going along with it. It certainly doesn't invalidate the relationship between the Catholic and the Catholic Church... it just makes that relationship a bit annoying for some people. Like that guy who married his first girlfriend from school; everyone knows they just bump along and could have done much better and they're not even that into each other. But you still can't divorce them just because you don't like it.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Actually what you said was: "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 most people being part of something and being a member of something are roughly synonymous, especially when that something is an organisation or club. If you said that you were part of the Munster Rugby Supporter's club then people would assume that you were a member. If you meant something different you should have specified that.
    I agree, to most people. But not to the Catholic Church, which is why I used their specific wording rather than the wording most people would use. In the context the notion of membership is not synonymous with being a part of the Church. I hardly think it's fair though to say I used a term, and on discovering I didn't use it, and for good reason, to ask me to forewarn that the term I am not using is not in this instance synonymous with the term that I am.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Yes, from the church's point of view the person remains a catholic. But we are not talking about the church's view anymore than the person's perspective on the matter. We are talking about an objective assessment of whether the person's beliefs fit the definition of what it is to be catholic.
    No, we're not.
    Firstly, we started the discussion with Nicolas Cages assertion which dealt purely with the person's perspective of the matter, so it remains the crux of the question.
    Secondly, what is an objective assessment of whether the person's beliefs fit the definition of what it is to be catholic (or even Catholic)? The notion itself is a subjective one; what it is to be Catholic is entirely at the whim of the Catholic Church, there can be no objective definition.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    To get back to the vegetarianism analogy, let's say that there's an international specifically vegetarian movement (like PETA, except less horrible). They could consider a person to be vegetarian from the moment they join regardless of what they do afterwards. Similarly, the person themselves could consider themselves vegetarian despite eating meat. However, a third party would not consider the person to be vegetarian because they don't fit the definition, i.e. they eat meat.
    The difference being; the definition of vegetarian is a linguistic one,and objective. Just as the definition of catholic is linguistic and objective. The definition of Catholic however, is religious, and subjective.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    As I've said, being a catholic means that you are entrusting the catholic church to interpret the will of God for you. As Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV (or what is now churchmilitant.tv) explained, just as the old testament ought to be read in light of the new testament so too should the new testament be read in light of the church. This is the fundamental difference between catholic and protestant and why people who don't believe what the church teaches ought not to identify as catholic.
    And again I disagree; being a Catholic means that you were incorporated in the Church by baptism. If you never listen to a word of the Church's interpretation of the will of God for the rest of your life you may become a dreadful sinner but you'll still be a Catholic. Whether or not you ought to identify as one is up for debate, but it doesn't change that you are one.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    You see, if we were to look at catholic in terms of what you outlined in your post, specifically:"So the Church says it is Catholic. And that a person who is baptised in the Church is incorporated into it. So as long as there is a Catholic Church, a person baptised in it is Catholic."
    we can see that a person calling themselves catholic on the basis of being incorporated into the catholic church is an insufficient definition. It excludes the possibility of apostasy, it says nothing about what the person currently believes, which is the overall point in identifying as an adherent of a particular religion.
    We certainly don't see that it's an insufficient definition for the Church though. And I suspect it's sufficient definition for those Catholics who want to be called Catholic but aren't too bothered about behaving as a Catholic should. The Church does accept the possibility of apostasy, obviously, since they coined the term; an apostate is excommunicated, which does not place them outside the Church, simply outside the communion of the Church. An apostate need only repent to be reconciled. That they never ceased to be Catholics is demonstrated by the fact that they are not baptised again when they do so. Nor does it need to say anything about what someone currently believes because from a Catholic point of view what someone currently believes doesn't determine whether or not they are currently part of the Church; their baptism ensured they will always be part of the Church.
    Saying what you currently believe may be the overall point in identifying as an adherent of a particular religion for some people, but for the Catholic Church, the overall point of being Catholic is to come closer to God.


  • Options
    #475
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #476
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If the label matched then the RCC wouldn't have to assure people they can use the label even though it doesn't match.
    Does the RCC do that?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If the label matched then you wouldn't be here arguing the label can be used based on arbitrary self-identification, you would demonstrate that it matches.
    Well, to be more accurate, if you realised that the label matched I wouldn't be here arguing :)
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Most "catholics" in this country use contraception, most have sex before marriage, 10% or so don't even beleive in god. Not despite knwoing the shouldn't, but because they don't care. The label demonstrably doesn't match the contents.
    Nope, it just doesn't match the contents that you think it should. If they're baptised and say they're Catholic, that's all the content that's required.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And as for you being converted or not? You have shown in every thread you have entered that you aren't interested in discussion, only in stalling and derailing the thread, so why should I care what you think?
    I don't know what's being stalled; we seem to be motoring along. As for derailing, well, it was you who introduced the question of what the Church definition of Catholic is. If the discussion proceeded on new lines as a result, that's really more your fault than mine.
    You've no reason really to care what I think, just as Catholics and the Catholic Church have no reason to care what you think.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So now you want me to repeat other posters posts, to stall the thread? I don't need to try again, his post is full of them, he even has a big chunk of them in italics.
    Nope, just to point out one part of Catholic doctrine in Oldrnwisrs post that prohibits any person baptised in the Catholic Church from being Catholic.
    I understand you think that asking you to prove what you say is true is stalling the thread, but if there's a big chunk that's full of them it ought not to take long. Don't forget to include the bit where it says they're prohibited from being Catholics though.


  • Options
    #477
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Absolam wrote: »
    The difference being; the definition of vegetarian is a linguistic one,and objective. Just as the definition of catholic is linguistic and objective. The definition of Catholic however, is religious, and subjective.

    I'm going to concentrate on this point because a) it speaks to the core of the point under discussion and b) no disrespect to your posting style but I have no intention of following you on a journey of dissection down the rabbit hole. This is, as I opened by saying, a minor point.

    In general I describe myself as a linguistic descriptivist rather than prescriptivist in that I am happy to say that a word has a particular definition rather than it should have a particular definition.

    For those unfamiliar with descriptivism vs. prescriptivism, Tom Scott has a very nice introduction here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qT8ZYewYEY


    Now, as Tom points out in the video, there must be at some point a consideration with regard to getting your message across. This is the problem we have here.

    Now, when you are having a conversation with someone and you point out that you're a catholic (or Catholic if your prefer) then the other person is going to make some assumptions based on your use of the word catholic. In general the assumption that is associated with the term catholic is that the person is a faithful catholic, i.e. they believe in the teachings of the church. If you mean something different, for example, that you were simply baptised a catholic, then you need to qualify your use of the word catholic so that there is no confusion.

    You see, earlier in this thread than Nick's comment about catholics being honest with themselves, there was an exchange between Huntergonzo and Peregrinus about the definition of catholic which kicked off when Hunter responded to this comment of yours:

    "And the 84% who identify as Roman Catholic of course. Which I think counts as a religious majority, unless there is a truly astonishing number of paleolithic era catlick Mammys desperately hiding the census forms from their enormous broods of apostate children still living at home."

    which was a response to this from Brian Shanahan:

    "so religious propoganda is better than commercial propoganda?
    And on a state broadcaster too, which is supposed to cater to all Irish, the non-religious majority as well as the tiny minority of paleolithic era catlicks."

    Now Brian makes a valid point. A state broadcaster ought not to be wasting a significant (€4m per year for RTE one alone) amount of taxpayer money on a religious call to prayer. Firstly, because this constitutes an endowment under Article 44.2.2 of the constitution and also because the actual rate of mass-going catholics (i.e. the group for which this call to prayer is going to be meaningful and relevant) is approximately 30% of the population.
    So when you responded with your 84% comment, you make it seem as if somehow the Angelus should be relevant because it's important to 84% of the population which is clearly ludicrous.

    Now, getting back to the linguistic argument. If you say that you're a catholic, but you don't believe in God or adhere to the teachings of the church, then describing yourself as catholic, however much it might mean to you, is meaningless in a conversation because it only confuses matters and tells the person you're talking to nothing about your actual beliefs.


  • Options
    #478
    tirchonaill86
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭tirchonaill86


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    1. What do you mean "we don't own much of anything" ?

    Well what I'm referring to here is simply the fact that quite a large part of Irelands beautiful acreage is owned by outside interests...interests that are non-irish. Multi national companies, in case you have been asleep, have bought up, are buying up or looking to buy up swathes of various sectors of our economy and our foreign government, it would appear are only too happy to let them do so. Lets please get away from the attacking the catholic church thing its not helpful. Its easy to do for people like you, in light of recent events in our history which were admittedly wrong and downright atrocious. 'and i tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'. The church will bounce back, it always does pal
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    2. Slavery?! - a certain group of religious orders actually managed to go that route in the 20th century by forcing women into indentured servitude as laundry slaves.
    Again, you misconstrued. Im referring to the British empire who has a dirty history of enslavery. Did you know that between 1641 to 1652 they enslaved or murdered 1 million Irish people? Irish fathers separated from their wives and children.But at least the slavery i speak of brought Rihanna to the world eh?
    SpaceTime wrote: »
    3. The whole concept of a secular state is that everyone has equal rights to be religious or not to be religious. The state and its services should remain neutral on this. That doesn't impact Catholic rights it simply prevents any religion from being de facto the "state religion"

    We do not have a state religion, many of our ancestors fought long and hard to get a way from a situation where they were a vaguely tolerated minority in a state that established the Anglican Church as the official religion.

    All this stuff like the Angulus on RTE, the prayers at the Dail and Seanad, councillors forcing crucifixes into council chambers, prayers before council meetings, the public school system being almost entirely religious and so on shows that we have no concept of republican values and that we've actually allowed a de facto established church to develop.
    Yes exactly.... and we fought and died to be the majority once again?? People still have the right in this country to freely practice their religion? I agree that the church and state was too closely linked and of course the many republicans originally were proponents of this separation . But once again we earned the right to practice our faith in these small non offensive ways. I don't see any recruitment campaigns going on, no indoctrinations or brainwashing. Just a few small moments of reflection. You would like to open the floodgates of hell and have a free for all? Don't forget that this country is predominantly a Christian country and will remain so for the foreseeable future. And although we love and have respect for our fellow brothers and sisters always, we must NEVER forget the word of the Father almighty which we believe in, and his commandments. This is more important than any of the **** you guys argue...this remains the majority of Irish peoples operating manual. The ten commandments. Read number 2.

    Maybe you should leave if you feel so strongly? I don't know that would be up to you at the end of the day. All i can advise you is to be ready for the day you see the face of our lord, the higher power. I hope you find him at peace with yourself. I sincerely hope that your relative finds a suitable school. Bless.


  • Options
    #479
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #480
    tirchonaill86
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭tirchonaill86


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Fred, if one child in the classroom stomps their feet and says 'i don't like maths...we are not doing any maths today' we would have nobody to build our bridges, run our economies or shape the world we live in. If you don't like the song thats playing, and i say this with the greatest respect for diversity, please just change the channel. While the minority must always be respected in this country, we can never forget the man who sent us or the centuries of oppressive regime. This is very simple stuff. No need for the guys on here with sociology degrees and their big fancy words/twists on things. Read the ten commandments Fred and let go of your past. Don't confuse the corruption of the church with the higher power....for man and spirit are two very different entities. Fred if you were truly comfortable with your atheist ways you wouldn't get offended over the acts of faith of people who do believe? Maybe you are struggling with your lack of faith and just on a power trip?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    tirchonaill86
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭tirchonaill86


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    So you've no problem making fun of other people's religion but feel that your religion (and its call to prayer) should be protected. How very enlightened of you!

    Excuse me, i was not making fun of anyones religion. It was merely an unsuccessful attempt at some light humour. I think its important we laugh at ourselves from time to time rather than fight over these matters. I honestly mean no offence and once again mean no harm to anybody. I wouldn't say this a truly secular state either obviously in the sense of the word. We will for the foreseeable future please god continue to adorn the crucifix on the walls of our schools?


Advertisement