Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
17-09-2020, 18:08   #16
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozz
I operate on a similar principle of honesty at times. If at any point someone had asked me outright, I would have answered instantly. However the doors of a church are wide open, I was often there by invitation (like weddings for example) and when you walk up they hand you a cracker with no questions asked and no terms and conditions laid out.

Apologies to mod whose correct snip I inadvertently edited out. Presumably he/she wouldn't object to the following element of the post




When you walked up (your action) you took advantage of the good faith being placed in YOU.

Your not a kid, you knew what you intended to do and you did it. Expecting the priest to question everybody as to their bona fides is the kind of principle of honesty Boris Johnson operates according to.

[If I had a bunch of Eucharists at my disposal and need something to feed the birds I'd have no problem doing that as a Christian. But I wouldn't obtain them under false pretences]

Last edited by antiskeptic; 17-09-2020 at 19:29.
antiskeptic is offline  
Advertisement
17-09-2020, 19:43   #17
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,607
Still sticking to your usual MO of ignoring my posts to you, but replying to my posts to others I see. Not really giving you the pedestal to morally judge the actions of others that really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
When you walked up (your action) you took advantage of the good faith being placed in YOU.
Again nothing of the sort was ever laid out to me. I was there by invitation, and they were giving these things out without question or conditions or caveats I have been made aware of by them. Then, or since.

[QUOTE=antiskeptic;114645639]Expecting the priest to question everybody[/QUTOE]

No such thing was required. I was well known to some of the priests in question. One of them happily handed me a cracker in the full knowledge I refused to attend Confirmation with the rest of my school for example.

Said priests were, and to my knowledge still are, aware that I kept the foodstuffs in question and still possess some of them.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
17-09-2020, 20:21   #18
Bannasidhe
Moderation is the key.
 
Bannasidhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Apologies to mod whose correct snip I inadvertently edited out. Presumably he/she wouldn't object to the following element of the post




When you walked up (your action) you took advantage of the good faith being placed in YOU.

Your not a kid, you knew what you intended to do and you did it. Expecting the priest to question everybody as to their bona fides is the kind of principle of honesty Boris Johnson operates according to.

[If I had a bunch of Eucharists at my disposal and need something to feed the birds I'd have no problem doing that as a Christian. But I wouldn't obtain them under false pretences]
Mod

Apology accepted but the warning stands that any more posts of that kind will result in sanctions.
Bannasidhe is offline  
Thanks from:
17-09-2020, 21:19   #19
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Again nothing of the sort was ever laid out to me. I was there by invitation, and they were giving these things out without question or conditions or caveats I have been made aware of by them. Then, or since.
Hark ... tis the sound of Boris / Dominic /Phil and all the rest who fudge around wafer thin (excuse the pun) technicalities.

You know the purpose and meaning of the Eucharist. And you trampled on it. No great crime, we all do such things, being sinners and all.
antiskeptic is offline  
17-09-2020, 23:00   #20
Hotblack Desiato
See you @ Milliway's -Socially distanced
 
Hotblack Desiato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,974
It seems to be atheists in the firing line here, but what about when the major religious beliefs contradict each other?

Is it okay for a christian to draw a picture of a middle eastern man and write the name Mohammed underneath? After all even his followers state that he's a prophet, not a god, and christians certainly don't regard him as a god.

How about a muslim stating that Jesus Christ was a prophet, not the son of god? Blasphemy, or not?

What about when they dispute control of a site each regards as sacred, such as in Jerusalem (just to be clear, a THREE-way Abrahamic faith conflict) or the former mosque in Cordoba which is now a cathedral?

Now as an atheist it's not really any skin off my nose to observe that it's whichever belief system is most powerful at that place and time which holds sway, but then again I'm not making any claims to the existence of an absolute morality.

Last edited by Hotblack Desiato; 18-09-2020 at 00:07.
Hotblack Desiato is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
17-09-2020, 23:14   #21
John Hutton
Registered User
 
John Hutton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotblack Desiato View Post
It seems to be atheists in the firing line here, but what about when the major religious beliefs contradict each other?

Is it okay for a christian to draw a picture of a middle eastern man and write the name Mohammed underneath? After all even his followers state that he's a prophet, not a god, and christians certainly don't regard him as a god.

How about a muslim stating that Jesus Christ was a prophet, not the son of god? Blasphemy, or not?

What about when they dispute control of a site each regards as sacred, such as in Jerusalem or the former mosque in Cordoba which is now a cathedral?

Now as an atheist it's not really any skin off my nose to observe that it's whichever belief system is most powerful at that place and time which holds sway, but then again I'm not making any claims to the existence of an absolute morality.
How about asking if it was OK for ISIS to destroy various religious sites?
John Hutton is offline  
17-09-2020, 23:20   #22
Hotblack Desiato
See you @ Milliway's -Socially distanced
 
Hotblack Desiato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,974
I believe that sites of historical interest should be respected whether religious or not.

Now joining the dots which the Irish government is incapable of (they allow classic cars, but do not allow current cars to viably reach classic age) that implies that current religious sites should also be respected.

It's private property at the end of the day. Religious appropriation of the public space and public property is another matter, however.


But you didn't even try to answer any of my questions...
Hotblack Desiato is offline  
17-09-2020, 23:24   #23
Bannasidhe
Moderation is the key.
 
Bannasidhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotblack Desiato View Post
It seems to be atheists in the firing line here, but what about when the major religious beliefs contradict each other?

Is it okay for a christian to draw a picture of a middle eastern man and write the name Mohammed underneath? After all even his followers state that he's a prophet, not a god, and christians certainly don't regard him as a god.

How about a muslim stating that Jesus Christ was a prophet, not the son of god? Blasphemy, or not?

What about when they dispute control of a site each regards as sacred, such as in Jerusalem or the former mosque in Cordoba which is now a cathedral?

Now as an atheist it's not really any skin off my nose to observe that it's whichever belief system is most powerful at that place and time which holds sway, but then again I'm not making any claims to the existence of an absolute morality.
Absolutely.

It not just Islam - Judaism does not recognise the Christian Messiah as The Messiah - is that sacrilege?

Even within Christianity there is no consensus - there have been on a number of occasions when items that were considered sacred by one Christian denomination (usually Roman Catholic) were wilfully and deliberately destroyed in iconoclastic rages by other Christian denominations who considered such items, ironically, to be sacrilegious.

One the one hand to do an act that would be considered 'sacrilege' is to disrespect and could be seen, as I said before, as being 'dickish' - but... what about when one's own beliefs are deliberately disrespected by the religious/other religions?
Is pushing back against disrespect disrespectful?

Obviously Atheists do not have sacred objects so the concept of sacrilege does not apply - but we can, collectively, be disrespected. For example by being told what we 'believe', or that we have a 'religion', or 'tenets' - all of which happens in this forum on a regular basis.

Is it a case that to disrespect religion is out of order but to be disrespected by the religious is fair game?
Bannasidhe is offline  
(2) thanks from:
17-09-2020, 23:34   #24
Bannasidhe
Moderation is the key.
 
Bannasidhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hutton View Post
How about asking if it was OK for ISIS to destroy various religious sites?
No, it wasn't. Did someone claim it was?
Was it ok for Christian churches to be built on pagan sites thereby destroying them?

ISIS is seeking to destroy what went before so only they are left.
Christianity tried the same thing across the globe.
The Parthenon was defaced by Early Christians.
Radical Calvinists went on an iconoclastic fury across northern Europe.
English Reformers destroyed the relics held in monasteries.
All with the same intent and reasoning as ISIS.

The willful destruction of sites of historical/architectural importance is never right.
Be that the tomb of Daniel in Mosul or Wood Quay.
Bannasidhe is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
17-09-2020, 23:36   #25
John Hutton
Registered User
 
John Hutton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bannasidhe View Post
No, it wasn't. Did someone claim it was?
Was it ok for Christian churches to be built on pagan sites thereby destroying them?

ISIS is seeking to destroy what went before so only they are left.
Christianity tried the same thing across the globe.
The Parthenon was defaced by Early Christians.
Radical Calvinists went on an iconoclastic fury across northern Europe.
English Reformers destroyed the relics held in monasteries.
All with the same intent and reasoning as ISIS.

The willful destruction of sites of historical/architectural importance is never right.
Be that the tomb of Daniel in Mosul or Wood Quay.
I was just adding to his list of questions as it seemed a big one that is along the lines of the others he said
John Hutton is offline  
(2) thanks from:
17-09-2020, 23:38   #26
magicbastarder
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 31,186
if i eat beef, am i being disrespectful to those for whom cattle are sacred?
if i do so, i do so knowing that some people regard what i am doing as disrespectful (though i do not know if it's considered 'sacrilege'). i coudl just order the fish instead?

though to a catholic, eating the body of your own god is probably more acceptable than to many other religions.
magicbastarder is online now  
(2) thanks from:
17-09-2020, 23:39   #27
auspicious
Registered User
 
auspicious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,156
Practicing is the operative word missing from the initial quote.
auspicious is offline  
17-09-2020, 23:43   #28
John Hutton
Registered User
 
John Hutton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 881
Regarding this thread, I should mention that I have no desire or plan to contribute to it beyond my comments I already submitted. It should also be noted that my comments were made in the context of another thread. Had the OP (I guess events proved me right on saying OP) started this as a separate thread I would not have contributed to it - because I do not believe it is an honest basis for a theoretical or proper discussion on the nature of "sacrilege" and its justifications, if any. I have already outlined why. But to reiterate:

There was no scientific merit to any "experiments". The manner of obtaining consecrated hosts was dishonest at a minimum. It involved intrusion on religious worship for dishonest ends. It involved going out of ones way to obtain sacred objects in order to destroy and publicise it. This was mere juvenile provocation designed to upset Catholics, dressed up as "science". To my mind, sad all round. I am not interested in "discussions" framed in such a manner - no one will get anything worthwhile out of it. Vampiric enjoyment of the upset or anger of others is not a healthy or worthwhile way to spend your time. It's just genuinely sad.

Regarding other posters and their comments, while I genuinely accept your bona fides, most are attempting to draw analogies which do not reach the threshold of the OPs alleged actions and are best discussed in a manner divorced from the claimed actions of the OP. For instance, denying central tenants of a religion could be viewed as sacrilegious by some religions, but OPs actions required numerous positive actions beyond mere statement - this is ground I have covered previously in other posts and shan't go over again.
John Hutton is offline  
17-09-2020, 23:50   #29
JayZeus
Registered User
 
JayZeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,216
I was baptised, made my communion and confirmation, went to catholic schools for indoctrination and my parents were faithful catholic folks.

Now I believe in none of the absolute nonsense, the ridiculous notion of the virgin giving birth to the son of god, that he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. It’s all complete and utter make believe.

But the catholic church still see me as being a catholic. So I’ll take their snacks and do as I please. Stick it in my pocket to feed the sparrows, use it to fold around a piece of used chewing gum, whatever I want to do with what is in effect the only tangible thing the catholic church has ever given to me for all the countless hours wasted sitting there being told lies.

And John, if that offends catholics, the notion that I’m desecrating the body of christ jesus, maybe you’d be better off encouraging the catholic church to provide once again a mechanism for someone like me (who doesn’t care one bit what you believe, merely in your right to believe what you want) whereby I can expunge any record of the forced association with an organisation of people who believe in some pretty ridiculous things.

Until then, the body of christ in the form of magic spells and bland wafers will go to the birds. It does them more good than anyone else anyway.

Fair game.

Last edited by JayZeus; 17-09-2020 at 23:58.
JayZeus is offline  
18-09-2020, 00:02   #30
Bannasidhe
Moderation is the key.
 
Bannasidhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hutton View Post
Regarding this thread, I should mention that I have no desire or plan to contribute to it beyond my comments I already submitted. It should also be noted that my comments were made in the context of another thread. Had the OP (I guess events proved me right on saying OP) started this as a separate thread I would not have contributed to it - because I do not believe it is an honest basis for a theoretical or proper discussion on the nature of "sacrilege" and its justifications, if any. I have already outlined why. But to reiterate:

There was no scientific merit to any "experiments". The manner of obtaining consecrated hosts was dishonest at a minimum. It involved intrusion on religious worship for dishonest ends. It involved going out of ones way to obtain sacred objects in order to destroy and publicise it. This was mere juvenile provocation designed to upset Catholics, dressed up as "science". To my mind, sad all round. I am not interested in "discussions" framed in such a manner - no one will get anything worthwhile out of it. Vampiric enjoyment of the upset or anger of others is not a healthy or worthwhile way to spend your time. It's just genuinely sad.

Regarding other posters and their comments, while I genuinely accept your bona fides, most are attempting to draw analogies which do not reach the threshold of the OPs alleged actions and are best discussed in a manner divorced from the claimed actions of the OP. For instance, denying central tenants of a religion could be viewed as sacrilegious by some religions, but OPs actions required numerous positive actions beyond mere statement - this is ground I have covered previously in other posts and shan't go over again.
But as is the nature of discussion sites your response to the post which was moved to become the OP of this thread had sparked a separate discussion and one which, I felt, deserves to be explored, just not at the expense of the topic it was detracting from.

This topic has grown legs as it were and should be allowed space to run.

It would be a shame if you choose not to take part as I think you would have interesting things to say.
I know I would be interested on if you think Roman Catholics are fully respectful of those things other religions - particularly Non-Abrahamic ones -consider sacred?
If yes - does that not indicate an acceptance that these beliefs have validity?
If no - is that not utterly disrespectful?
Bannasidhe is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet