gaaboard.com

http://www.derryjournal.com/news/video-living-together-before-marriage-not-good-archbishop-eamon-martin-1-7053071#axzz3qmzKhhaz.

It really is time that the Church switched the emphasis from an infinitely compassionate  God (thus leading many to the erroneous conclusion that he will tolerate anything due to unconditional love) to the reality of one who has laid down rules and whose compassion can only be accessed through sincere repentance and avoidance of sin.

Well my local curate would disagree with that synopsis.

Jesus was always berating the Scribes and Pharisees for being all about rules but no love or compassion.
Maybe it's time for Tony to set of the "Church of latter day Pharisees".

Quote from: Rossfan on November 07, 2015, 10:55:02 AM
Jesus was always berating the Scribes and Pharisees for being all about rules but no love or compassion.
Maybe it's time for Tony to set of the "Church of latter day Pharisees".

Couldn't agree more. I have a feeling he's a Free Presbyterian in disguise.

No Christian believes that without repentance,compassion and forgiveness will be shown.True Jesus did exhibit extraordinary patience while trying to cajole people away from sin,but for example,he had words of comfort for only one of the two brigands who died alongside him on the cross.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 12:13:51 PM
No Christian believes that without repentance,compassion and forgiveness will be shown.True Jesus did exhibit extraordinary patience while trying to cajole people away from sin,but for example,he had words of comfort for only one of the two brigands who died alongside him on the cross.

https://youtu.be/jHPOzQzk9Qo

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 12:13:51 PM
No Christian believes that without repentance,compassion and forgiveness will be shown.True Jesus did exhibit extraordinary patience while trying to cajole people away from sin,but for example,he had words of comfort for only one of the two brigands who died alongside him on the cross.

I'm sure Jesus is over the moon that you appreciate his efforts...

Quote from: easytiger95 on November 07, 2015, 12:42:43 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 12:13:51 PM
No Christian believes that without repentance,compassion and forgiveness will be shown.True Jesus did exhibit extraordinary patience while trying to cajole people away from sin,but for example,he had words of comfort for only one of the two brigands who died alongside him on the cross.

I'm sure Jesus is over the moon that you appreciate his efforts...

(http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2596/746/1600/903303/buddy%20christ.jpg)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 07:46:47 AM
http://www.derryjournal.com/news/video-living-together-before-marriage-not-good-archbishop-eamon-martin-1-7053071#axzz3qmzKhhaz.

It really is time that the Church switched the emphasis from an infinitely compassionate  God (thus leading many to the erroneous conclusion that he will tolerate anything due to unconditional love) to the reality of one who has laid down rules and whose compassion can only be accessed through sincere repentance and avoidance of sin.

Tony

If you had any nads you should sit out side Mass and challenge people on the way in as to whether they believe in your literal truths? Anyway best of luck with that or any success you or anyone who shares your vile and repugnant views has in any election they might stand in.

Not meaning to drag this down to personal abuse but clearly are a dick

If you are a Christian and a Believer what other approach is valid? If we are all going to Heaven regardless what was the point of Jesus' earthly ministry?

I take your point about the average mass goer and would accept that many are routine nominal Catholics only

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 05:27:34 PM
If you are a Christian and a Believer what other approach is valid? If we are all going to Heaven regardless what was the point of Jesus' earthly ministry?

I take your point about the average mass goer and would accept that many are routine nominal Catholics only

The Church acknowledges that everyone sins, Tony, Jesus was on Earth and died for that. I'm nowhere near even knowledgeable on the subject however my understanding is that as long as we try to be good people and love our neighbor as we love ourselves then we should be grand.

Thankfully your fundamentalist and archaic notions and beliefs seem to be fading at an ever increasing rate from the Church. If the Church aligned to your beliefs the flock would be a total of one soon enough - yourself.

What then is the point of the Ten Commandments? Read any Catholic Cathechism which makes it expressly clear that commission of a mortal sin and failure to repent sincerely will result in eternal damnation.

That is Catholic Church teaching, which simply informs my views.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

— Matthew 19:16-19

He didn't mention cohabiting, and neither do the Commandments. I think we're ok.

And by the way, given your exploits in Summerhill, I'd keep a low profile on this one...

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 08:26:09 PM
What then is the point of the Ten Commandments? Read any Catholic Cathechism which makes it expressly clear that commission of a mortal sin and failure to repent sincerely will result in eternal damnation.

That is Catholic Church teaching, which simply informs my views.

Can you not think for yourself?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 05:27:34 PM
If you are a Christian and a Believer what other approach is valid? If we are all going to Heaven regardless what was the point of Jesus' earthly ministry?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 08:26:09 PM
What then is the point of the Ten Commandments?

All good questions there Tony. Piss poor answers though

Think for myself? You mean create my own Wee God and make the rules for him and apply them to myself? All Catholic teaching is informed by sacred scripture,not just "made up"

Tony What are you trying to achieve with these posts? Genuinely what are you trying to achieve?

If its WUMing, fair enuff, you have achieved that in spectacular fashion!

If it to try and prove your opinion right then you are failing spectacularly! But why do you want so badly to prove yourself right in the first place dont you believe it yourself?

If its to genuinely spread the word of God then you are also failing spectaluarly. The word of God is wide ranging and not over focused on single doctrine, and it appears that you arent very well versed in the theology of the Catholic church anyway. If you genuinely want to do this then I would advise to start with something less obiviously controversial and judgmental otherwise you'll just get people's back up. Maybe you should think about becoming a catechist, you would have the knowledge to teach others and probably more importantly you would be able to recognise those who are willing to learn.

In any case a secular gaaboard is not the place to try and hammer Catholic home doctrine that many practicing Catholics dont even adhere to

There are a variety of people who post on these threads.The majority are anti Catholic theophobes who will never be convinced about the existence of God never mind Catholic theology.

However there are a few who are lukewarm but not disbelieving, who sadly have an erroneous view of a God who loves unconditionally and thus one is bound for heaven regardless of sin etc.It is to these people I am pointing out the teaching of the Catholic Church which is basically sin is to be avoided and repented from and only those who do so will experience God's compassion and mercy but this is wholly conditional upon bring contrite and turning away from sin.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 10:43:27 PM
There are a variety of people who post on these threads.The majority are anti Catholic theophobes who will never be convinced about the existence of God never mind Catholic theology.

However there are a few who are lukewarm but not disbelieving, who sadly have an erroneous view of a God who loves unconditionally and thus one is bound for heaven regardless of sin etc.It is to these people I am pointing out the teaching of the Catholic Church which is basically sin is to be avoided and repented from and only those who do so will experience God's compassion and mercy but this is wholly conditional upon bring contrite and turning away from sin.

For anyone that is 'lukewarm' listening to you would completely turn them off everything got to do with the Catholic Church.
The likes of you are doing more harm than good IMO. Anyone reading your ramblings would surely say I don't want to be a part of anything someone like you is a part of.

I don't matter.God does though and it is he who must be pleased and obeyed.

OJ v TF in a Religious discussion could potentially be worthy of PPV TV.

Quote from: smelmoth on November 07, 2015, 02:32:28 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 07:46:47 AM
http://www.derryjournal.com/news/video-living-together-before-marriage-not-good-archbishop-eamon-martin-1-7053071#axzz3qmzKhhaz.

It really is time that the Church switched the emphasis from an infinitely compassionate  God (thus leading many to the erroneous conclusion that he will tolerate anything due to unconditional love) to the reality of one who has laid down rules and whose compassion can only be accessed through sincere repentance and avoidance of sin.

Tony

If you had any nads you should sit out side Mass and challenge people on the way in as to whether they believe in your literal truths? Anyway best of luck with that or any success you or anyone who shares your vile and repugnant views has in any election they might stand in.

Not meaning to drag this down to personal abuse but clearly are a dick

I admire Tony for having the intestinal fortitude to put his beliefs out there and defend what he see's as his corner, I have no gra for the Catholic Church but day what you like, the man is consistent and has a mind of his own, unlike a lot on here who hide under the banner of left wing socialism.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 07:46:47 AM
http://www.derryjournal.com/news/video-living-together-before-marriage-not-good-archbishop-eamon-martin-1-7053071#axzz3qmzKhhaz.

It really is time that the Church switched the emphasis from an infinitely compassionate  God (thus leading many to the erroneous conclusion that he will tolerate anything due to unconditional love) to the reality of one who has laid down rules and whose compassion can only be accessed through sincere repentance and avoidance of sin.

I seem to remember the Columban Fathers (or was it the Redemptorists?) doing a novena (or was it a mission) around our way years ago and preaching the precise opposite of what you're advocating. Looks like there's no room for them in Tony's Fundamentalist Catholic Church.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 05:27:34 PM
If you are a Christian and a Believer what other approach is valid? If we are all going to Heaven regardless what was the point of Jesus' earthly ministry?

I take your point about the average mass goer and would accept that many are routine nominal Catholics only

Why would God be nice to everyone? Surely he will only reward people like Tony?

Religion has provided you with the perfect outlet for your deep hatred of anything different to you. If that is the point of Jesus' teachings, then you are laughing. If not..........you're f*cked....

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 10:55:13 PM
I don't matter.God does though and it is he who must be pleased and obeyed.

I like crazy Tony. We're only a few replies away from him whipping out the Kool-Aid and offering us all a drink.

What is fundamentalist about believing that salvation requires belief in Jesus,and avoidance of sin and sincere repentance therefrom? Is this not the basic belief of all mainstream Churches?

Very simple really and quite logical.Essentially getting what one deserves.If this is not the case and we are all destined for heaven why did Christ come to Earth? If God doesn't exist what is the point of life?

Quote from: stew on November 09, 2015, 03:26:27 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 07, 2015, 02:32:28 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 07:46:47 AM
http://www.derryjournal.com/news/video-living-together-before-marriage-not-good-archbishop-eamon-martin-1-7053071#axzz3qmzKhhaz.

It really is time that the Church switched the emphasis from an infinitely compassionate  God (thus leading many to the erroneous conclusion that he will tolerate anything due to unconditional love) to the reality of one who has laid down rules and whose compassion can only be accessed through sincere repentance and avoidance of sin.

Tony

If you had any nads you should sit out side Mass and challenge people on the way in as to whether they believe in your literal truths? Anyway best of luck with that or any success you or anyone who shares your vile and repugnant views has in any election they might stand in.

Not meaning to drag this down to personal abuse but clearly are a dick

I admire Tony for having the intestinal fortitude to put his beliefs out there and defend what he see's as his corner, I have no gra for the Catholic Church but day what you like, the man is consistent and has a mind of his own, unlike a lot on here who hide under the banner of left wing socialism.

Are you reading the same thread? He's telling us that his position is dictated, to the letter, by religious dogma. Surely that's the polar opposite of having a mind of his own?

Er,,having studied that "dogma" and using my own mind to decide that I accept it,without any external coercion,is in fact me thinking for myself.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 05:46:44 PM
What is fundamentalist about believing that salvation requires belief in Jesus,and avoidance of sin and sincere repentance therefrom? Is this not the basic belief of all mainstream Churches?

Very simple really and quite logical.Essentially getting what one deserves.If this is not the case and we are all destined for heaven why did Christ come to Earth? If God doesn't exist what is the point of life?

Did Jesus tell you to disown any family member who happened to be gay?

What do you think such a hostile, prejudiced act would warrant as a reward from God?

I would not associate with any sinner (family or otherwise) who refuses to accept they are committing sin.Naturally if they were trying to move away from sin that would be a different story.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 08:09:52 PM
I would not associate with any sinner (family or otherwise) who refuses to accept they are committing sin.Naturally if they were trying to move away from sin that would be a different story.

So you would not associate with any gay person (family or otherwise), who refuses to accept that being gay is wrong or sinful, unless of course this gay person was trying to move away from being gay?

Again I'll ask, what do you think such a hostile, prejudiced act would warrant as a reward from God?

People willingly engaging in sin,without any acknowledgement of sin or willingness to move away from sin are effectively removed from God by their own volition.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 08:39:18 PM
People willingly engaging in sin,without any acknowledgement of sin or willingness to move away from sin are effectively removed from God by their own volition.

Nope. You are the one disowning them. Don't go blaming it all on God.

What do you think such a hostile, prejudiced act would warrant as a reward from God?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 05:46:44 PM
What is fundamentalist about believing that salvation requires belief in Jesus,and avoidance of sin and sincere repentance therefrom? Is this not the basic belief of all mainstream Churches?

Very simple really and quite logical.Essentially getting what one deserves.If this is not the case and we are all destined for heaven why did Christ come to Earth? If God doesn't exist what is the point of life?

A few post earlier you said god must be obeyed. You use the mere inclusion on the bible as dictat that some rule or other must be followed. This is not logical. It is fundamentalism.

As for why did "christ" come to earth - i would imagine the carpenter boyo getting the ride outta Mary might have had something to do with it. Now that is logic.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 06:30:24 PM
Er,,having studied that "dogma" and using my own mind to decide that I accept it,without any external coercion,is in fact me thinking for myself.

And when you can't see corroboration of biblical content from the real world do you reject it?
If you see something labelled sinful or wrong in the bible do you challenge it and ask if it really is wrong?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 08:09:52 PM
I would not associate with any sinner (family or otherwise) who refuses to accept they are committing sin.Naturally if they were trying to move away from sin that would be a different story.

Not following in the "way of the lord" then?

It looks like an absolute rejection of jesus' message

Jesus associated with sinners in an attempt to turn them away from sin,that was his mission.

As regards your other points I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and follow the interpretation of it by my Church.I don't need or expect Worldly corroboration,that's not what faith is about

yours is about hedging your bets as you illustrated before though tony ;)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 09:21:25 PM
Jesus associated with sinners in an attempt to turn them away from sin,that was his mission.

As regards your other points I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and follow the interpretation of it by my Church.I don't need or expect Worldly corroboration,that's not what faith is about

Who did he turn away? Who did he reject or shun?

Does he "let he without sin cast the first stone" stance or his condemation of the rules-based pharisees not provide chrisitians with some guidance or instruction?

Following the interpretation of the bible by your church is hardly thinking for yourself. It is the passing on of responsibility for your decisions and prejudices to another.

It provides a guide  for living (Ten Commandments) etc.Look everyone is free to do what they want but don't accuse anyone who believes activities to be wrong and sinful,of being prejudiced against those who engage in these activities

Quote from: smelmoth on November 09, 2015, 08:53:51 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 08:09:52 PM
I would not associate with any sinner (family or otherwise) who refuses to accept they are committing sin.Naturally if they were trying to move away from sin that would be a different story.

Not following in the "way of the lord" then?

It looks like an absolute rejection of jesus' message

Didn't Bruce Lee fight Chuck Norris in that one?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 10:01:55 PM
It provides a guide  for living (Ten Commandments) etc.Look everyone is free to do what they want but don't accuse anyone who believes activities to be wrong and sinful,of being prejudiced against those who engage in these activities

Why not? Because it's uncomfortable to have this pointed out?

So is it prejudiced to not associate with rapists,murderers, muggers of elderly etc,all of whom are irrefutably sinners?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 10:01:55 PM
It provides a guide  for living (Ten Commandments) etc.Look everyone is free to do what they want but don't accuse anyone who believes activities to be wrong and sinful,of being prejudiced against those who engage in these activities

God forbid that anyone would think that you are prejudiced Crazy Tony. Although I do seem to remember on the night of same sex marriage referendum result that you enquired whether Baggot Street would need to have it's name changed - do you remember what you suggested?

Gotta love that Crazy Tony (and keep an eye on him)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 10:38:07 PM
So is it prejudiced to not associate with rapists,murderers, muggers of elderly etc,all of whom are irrefutably sinners?

Are you comparing gays to murderers, muggers of elderly etc?

Are you comparing the sin of being gay to being a murderer?

What reward will God have for you for your hostility and prejudice towards gays?

Jesus hung around with a lot of dodgy and undesirable characters. ;)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 10:38:07 PM
So is it prejudiced to not associate with rapists,murderers, muggers of elderly etc,all of whom are irrefutably sinners?

Aren't these precisely the kind of people Jesus associated with?

First up I dont understand how you manage to turn your threads whether by goading or by your own ego into the same old thing. It could have been an interesting subject to discuss but by trying to stir up controversy you have let this thread end up like all the rest a slaggin session for yourself and a opportunity for the usual suspects to exercise their bias and reaffirm their insecurities about religion.

Didnt Jesus say we should visit prisoners? Doesnt the church advocate similar things and indeed have ministries precisely for people like those you have mentioned?

Also what about bankers and bookmakers do you disassociate from them? They arent repenting from their ways?

How can you say a gay person who has lead a pious life with a good heart, repented for all sins, but never acknowledged that being gay is wrong, will be condemned, it doesn't make sense.

Gay people are the way God made them and he has made millions of them, why did he do that? They can't help the way they are, most lead good productive lifes and don't harm or offend anyone. Indeed isnt it just lucky that hetro sex produces life otherwise we could never even be at it, if you want to adhere to the church's strictness doctrine. Homosexuality is a paradox for the doctrine in that love produces life etc and it doesnt fit into that but the very least is that they should not be condemned in doctrine.

And before you say it cant change, it can change. Look at limbo, it wasnt even doctrine, but dogma, stuff your supposed to believe regardless but the last Pope decided that it doesnt exist after all. So some sort of accommodation can be made for homosexuals within the doctrine if the will is there.

You and me arent the judge Tony, its not our place. God will be, leave it in his hands.

I'll have to confess (forgive the pun) that when I read these threads, the image that comes to my mind is something like.....


(https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/andrew20van20buren20plates.jpeg)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 10:01:55 PM
It provides a guide  for living (Ten Commandments) etc.

The 10 commandments are largely bollocks. The sense that is in then (try not to kill people etc) was hardly revolutionary. Pretty sure people were aware of this before the loon on the hill got involved. Those who preclude themselves from human slaughter today (amd I count myself amongst them) are suffering from acute mental problems if there reason for abstaining is the 10 commandments.

Moses certainly was not a moral man and certainly someone to avoid if looking for moral guidance.  By today's standards he was not only maniac but a cnut of the first rank.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 10:01:55 PM
Look everyone is free to do what they want but don't accuse anyone who believes activities to be wrong and sinful,of being prejudiced against those who engage in these activities

the key to this is the word believes. People can believe anything they like (you only have to read your posts). But when those beliefs impact on others in a non-sensical way and without anything to back them up then expect to be called prejudiced.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 09, 2015, 10:38:07 PM
So is it prejudiced to not associate with rapists,murderers, muggers of elderly etc,all of whom are irrefutably sinners?

Ask yourself what harm a rapist/murderer/mugger does?
Ask yourself what harm a lesbian does (by virtue of being a lesbian)?

If the answers are different then, being logical, your response to them will be different. .asic stuff,

Quote from: Rossfan on November 09, 2015, 11:31:50 PM
Jesus hung around with a lot of dodgy and undesirable characters. ;)

And a lot of returning the favour

Jesus hung around with "dodgy" characters for one reason.To attempt to get them to change. No point in him hanging around with good people,it wasn't them who he came to save.How hard is that to understand? By hanging around with them,he wasn't condoning their lifestyles or their sinful ways,he wanted them to repent and lead decent sin free lives.

To clarify my position,in the course of my daily life I have normal everyday dealings with members of the LBGT community.In my dealings I treat these people with courtesy and respect as I try to do with everyone.But I would not accept an invitation to a gay wedding or civil partnership ceremony.

Would you use a credit card? Thereby aid and abet usury?

Jesus was Not exactly known for hanging out with the scribes and Pharisees, those whited sepulchres, hypocrites, and undoubted sinners.  What, didn't Jesus care about righting their wrongs?  Pope Francis visits the imprisoned and the homeless, not, in my view, to fix them, but rather out of Christian compassion, the sort of compassion/empathy, Tony, that you fail to evince.  You think an all-seeing God can't see through your self-serving 'goodness' and won't be critical that you treat his 'least brethren' as pariahs. And I'm sure he's irritated, too, that you don't insert a space after a comma.

I do use a credit card,but pay off at end of month without incurring interest😂.

Look the Catholic Church,along with all other Christian Churches teaches Heaven and Hell await the righteous and wicked.This belief is derived from Scripture, it is not my decree.It is plain that Jesus' mission (and Im amazed by the many people on this thread,who don't profess to believe in him on one hand yet quote his time spent with sinners on the other😱)  was to atone for "sin" (not understand it,condone it or to have unconditional love for its practitioners). His whole mission was to save sinners hence the amount of time spent with the Ungodly.

But not the ungodly scribes and Pharisees?  Hmmm, selective saving?

He didn't have to spend time with every sinner to make clear the purpose of his life,which was to save people by persuading them to turn away from sin.The example is there for everyone to see

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 06:00:55 PM
Jesus hung around with "dodgy" characters for one reason.To attempt to get them to change. No point in him hanging around with good people,it wasn't them who he came to save.How hard is that to understand? By hanging around with them,he wasn't condoning their lifestyles or their sinful ways,he wanted them to repent and lead decent sin free lives.

To clarify my position,in the course of my daily life I have normal everyday dealings with members of the LBGT community.In my dealings I treat these people with courtesy and respect as I try to do with everyone.But I would not accept an invitation to a gay wedding or civil partnership ceremony.

Would you go to a ceremony in a hotel between a man and woman. The name of it escapes me at the moment! :-[

So, he chose to hang out with the marginalized, the ostracized, the lowly, because, well, he didn't have enough time, being God and all.  Or perhaps, maybe he was modeling a type of conduct that was inclusive of the untouchables, those that the self-righteous denizens of Poyntzpass refused to associate with (even members of their own family).

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 07:11:17 PM
He didn't have to spend time with every sinner to make clear the purpose of his life,which was to save people by persuading them to turn away from sin.The example is there for everyone to see

Tony, who did Cain and Abel marry?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 06:46:46 PM
I do use a credit card,but pay off at end of month without incurring interest😂.

Look the Catholic Church,along with all other Christian Churches teaches Heaven and Hell await the righteous and wicked.This belief is derived from Scripture, it is not my decree.It is plain that Jesus' mission (and Im amazed by the many people on this thread,who don't profess to believe in him on one hand yet quote his time spent with sinners on the other😱)  was to atone for "sin" (not understand it,condone it or to have unconditional love for its practitioners). His whole mission was to save sinners hence the amount of time spent with the Ungodly.

Most people would probably believe that Jesus (the man) existed. It's the rest of it that's a bit far fetched.

And people here are only quoting what he did to point out the holes in your position.

Quote from: Maguire01 on November 10, 2015, 07:50:18 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 06:46:46 PM
I do use a credit card,but pay off at end of month without incurring interest😂.

Look the Catholic Church,along with all other Christian Churches teaches Heaven and Hell await the righteous and wicked.This belief is derived from Scripture, it is not my decree.It is plain that Jesus' mission (and Im amazed by the many people on this thread,who don't profess to believe in him on one hand yet quote his time spent with sinners on the other😱)  was to atone for "sin" (not understand it,condone it or to have unconditional love for its practitioners). His whole mission was to save sinners hence the amount of time spent with the Ungodly.

Most people would probably believe that Jesus (the man) existed. It's the rest of it that's a bit far fetched.

And people here are only quoting what he did to point out the holes in your position.

Most people have read some or all of the Bible. It is the most widely read and printed book in history. And an interesting read it is too. But it is not to be taken literally.

Tony seems to believe that only he himself has read it, for some reason.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 06:00:55 PM
Jesus hung around with "dodgy" characters for one reason.To attempt to get them to change.

That insight is based on what exactly?

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 10, 2015, 06:07:27 PM
Would you use a credit card? Thereby aid and abet usury?

Excellemt use of words there. Tony's own admission is that he does "aid and abet" usury

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 06:46:46 PM
I do use a credit card,but pay off at end of month without incurring interest😂.

Look the Catholic Church,along with all other Christian Churches teaches Heaven and Hell await the righteous and wicked.This belief is derived from Scripture, it is not my decree.It is plain that Jesus' mission (and Im amazed by the many people on this thread,who don't profess to believe in him on one hand yet quote his time spent with sinners on the other😱)  was to atone for "sin" (not understand it,condone it or to have unconditional love for its practitioners). His whole mission was to save sinners hence the amount of time spent with the Ungodly.

Time to elevate your post above the level of the inanely stupid.

I don't believe Bob Cratchit existed. I do believe Thomas Paine existed. I don't believe either was the son of god. You seem to think that would disentitle me to quote Paine's words or Cratchit's humility. That is incredibly stupid of you. Incredibly stupid

Whether Jesus existed,or is the Son of God can neither be proved or disproved.I,along with millions of others believe he did exist and was the Son of God.What is wrong with that? Why are so many,as evidenced by this thread,not content to simply disagree with this but feel the need to ridicule this belief? Deep down do they fear it might just be true,and that their eternal destiny is dark?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 09:35:36 PM
Whether Jesus existed,or is the Son of God can neither be proved or disproved.I,along with millions of others believe he did exist and was the Son of God.What is wrong with that? Why are so many,as evidenced by this thread,not content to simply disagree with this but feel the need to ridicule this belief? Deep down do they fear it might just be true,and that their eternal destiny is dark?

Do you think your beliefs should be above ridicule? Why?

Ridicule is ultimately the product of fear.Do you think I'm worried if my beliefs are ridiculed? Do you think ridicule will alter my beliefs one iota?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 09:35:36 PM
Whether Jesus existed,or is the Son of God can neither be proved or disproved.I,along with millions of others believe he did exist and was the Son of God.What is wrong with that? Why are so many,as evidenced by this thread,not content to simply disagree with this but feel the need to ridicule this belief? Deep down do they fear it might just be true,and that their eternal destiny is dark?

It is not your beliefs. It is how you go about expressing them and how judgemental / hypocritical you come across.

Faith, when in the right hands, is something i would always respect. When in the right hands is a key point though.

I am not being judgemental,simply expressing the beliefs shared largely by all mainstream Christian Churches.

Are those people rudiculing these beliefs trying to convince me,or themselves that these beliefs are ridiculous.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 10:15:04 PM
I am not being judgemental,simply expressing the beliefs shared largely by all mainstream Christian Churches.

Are those people rudiculing these beliefs trying to convince me,or themselves that these beliefs are ridiculous.

You would disown a gay family member.

You have said it often enough. That has nothing to do with religion, Jesus or shows any understanding of anything other that your own prejudices.

Similarly I would disown a family member if he or she murdered,raped,burgled etc,at least until they showed signs of true remorse.I am also sure that the family member disowned would have little care about being disowned.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 09:53:06 PM
Ridicule is ultimately the product of fear.Do you think I'm worried if my beliefs are ridiculed? Do you think ridicule will alter my beliefs one iota?

It has nothing to do with fear. If someone ridicules creationists because they claim the earth is 6,000 years old, where is the fear?

The fear is in the notion that it was perchance "created"

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 10:34:54 PM
Similarly I would disown a family member if he or she murdered,raped,burgled etc,at least until they showed signs of true remorse.I am also sure that the family member disowned would have little care about being disowned.

You think if you disowned a gay family member that they 'would have little care about being disowned'?

This is the beauty of your argument. You can decide how people feel, even if you have judged, humiliated and destroyed them, you will have no doubt how they feel about it and you will have nothing to worry about.

People looking back on history might wonder how the world gets to a situation whereby someone can be so f*cked up and commit terrible atrocities against his fellow man, and feel no remorse.

The answer almost always involved buying into some dogma or other.

Well see exhibit a) above.

Ffs is disowning a family member (ie not talking or associating with them due to disapproving of their lifestyle) any worse than the fallouts in families over money or disapproval of marrying someone considered beneath that family member (albeit a member of the opposite sex)?

We're not talking about gas chambers or holocausts😠

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 10:51:32 PM
Ffs is disowning a family member (ie not talking or associating with them due to disapproving of their lifestyle) any worse than the fallouts in families over money or disapproval of marrying someone considered beneath that family member (albeit a member of the opposite sex)?

We're not talking about gas chambers or holocausts😠

You are talking about them as the equals of murderers and muggers of elderly.

You are even telling us how they will feel after you disown them.

There is nothing about them that matters, only you. That is exactly the type of personality that, in other circumstances, can easily justify any behaviour.

So a simple dislike of someone or disconnect from someone due to disapproval makes everyone of us a potential murderer?

NO
But a wee bit of tolerance would help reduce your blood pressure considerably.
BTW where you at SPCA during the 1960's
L

Tolerance does not equate to approval of things one believes to be wrong.

SPCA in the 70s,not 60s (not that fecking old😂)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
The fear is in the notion that it was perchance "created"

There is absolutely no fear. Even if, by some massive stretch, all the science was wrong and the earth was only 6,000 years old, where's the fear? There is none.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 05:57:13 AM
So a simple dislike of someone or disconnect from someone due to disapproval makes everyone of us a potential murderer?

You seem to equate sins and have grouped homosexuality and things like murder several times...

It is no-one but you making this comparison. (Well ok there was one other early on...)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 05:57:13 AM
So a simple dislike of someone or disconnect from someone due to disapproval makes everyone of us a potential murderer?

As imtommygunn said, you are the one connecting gays and murderers.

Disowning someone is not mere disapproval. Many parent disapprove of their kids actions, but they don't disown them. You have repeatedly said you would disown someone who is gay, just as you would disown a murderer.

To even a causal reader here it os obvious that you have no empathy for anyone anywhere.

Would you say people who commit atrocities have any empathy?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 10:39:18 PM
The fear is in the notion that it was perchance "created"

No it is not.

You rarely hear of people being ridiculed for theistic evolutionary views, such as that espoused by the catholic church, wherein the earth and universe unfolded as suggested by scientific research, but where a god was ultimately the creator and at some point instilled a soul into the human evolutionary lineage. That viewpoint is, at least, consistent with science, rendering onto Caesar, so to speak.

Young earth creationism, on the other hand, is utterly anti-science, dishonest and replete with fraud and logical fallacies. They begin with their biblical account and label everything that does not fit with their literal interpretation as fraudulent. It is their laughable anti-science propaganda and their ludicrous attempts at "scientific" proofs of their views that elicit (and warrant) ridicule.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 06:00:55 PM
Jesus hung around with "dodgy" characters for one reason.To attempt to get them to change. No point in him hanging around with good people,it wasn't them who he came to save.How hard is that to understand? By hanging around with them,he wasn't condoning their lifestyles or their sinful ways,he wanted them to repent and lead decent sin free lives.

To clarify my position,in the course of my daily life I have normal everyday dealings with members of the LBGT community.In my dealings I treat these people with courtesy and respect as I try to do with everyone.But I would not accept an invitation to a gay wedding or civil partnership ceremony.

Tony I'd say that won't be an issue you'll have.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 09:35:36 PM
Whether Jesus existed,or is the Son of God can neither be proved or disproved.I,along with millions of others believe he did exist and was the Son of God.What is wrong with that? Why are so many,as evidenced by this thread,not content to simply disagree with this but feel the need to ridicule this belief? Deep down do they fear it might just be true,and that their eternal destiny is dark?

Absolutely nothing wrong with you beliefs, except when you deny others the right to their beliefs and adopt a fundamentalist approach that cause hurt and exclusion and ridicule, even referring to Gay people as "these people" is insulting. You and your fundamentalist equivalents in the protestant churches are the reason many people are turned of by religion. You demand freedoms for yourself that you aren't prepared to cede to others of a different view. I don't recognise my God or the Christ I believe in, in any of your pronouncements. I pretty sure it falls into the Judge not category.... 

Can someone tell me did Christ say tolerate your neighbour/enemy or love him?

For the nth time,Jesus did not condone sin and warns many times in the Gospel of the consequences of failing to repent from it.His compassion and mercy is not unconditional,it has to be sought after and earned.This is not a fundamentalist position but the core belief of all mainstream churches.

I do not approve of the gay lifestyle, that does not mean I hate gays or would in any way harm them, and I am fully entitled to hold that view as are others to hold opposite views without being labelled emotionless,homophobic or any other extremist label.

Two other propositions I reject.

1.Gays are some persecuted minority.Look at the arrogance on display at any Gay Pride Parade and see the myth this is.

2.Gays are "born that way". If this is true so are paedophiles,murderers,rapists etc therefore by logical extension no one should be held responsible for anything.

Do you approve of the left-handed lifestyle?

And what has murder and pedophilia got to do with sexuality?  Why compare them?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 05:51:40 PM
Two other propositions I reject.

1.Gays are some persecuted minority.Look at the arrogance on display at any Gay Pride Parade and see the myth this is.

2.Gays are "born that way". If this is true so are paedophiles,murderers,rapists etc therefore by logical extension no one should be held responsible for anything.

Is your own (presumed) attraction to women innate?

What parts of "consent" and "harm to others" and "adult" and "child" and "greater good" do you not comprehend?

By the logic of your first part, sure Irish Catholics were never oppressed. Look at all the Paddy's Day parades. And what about those civil rights marchers in the US south in the early sixties. The nerve of them marching through those streets, holding their heads up high, singing "we shall overcome!" A parade or a march means institutional and societal bias and prejudice has been consigned to the dustbin of history!

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 05:51:40 PM
Two other propositions I reject.

1.Gays are some persecuted minority.Look at the arrogance on display at any Gay Pride Parade and see the myth this is.

2.Gays are "born that way". If this is true so are paedophiles,murderers,rapists etc therefore by logical extension no one should be held responsible for anything.

Tony I really hope you're on the windup and don't genuinely believe either of those assertions.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 05:51:40 PM
Two other propositions I reject.

1.Gays are some persecuted minority.Look at the arrogance on display at any Gay Pride Parade and see the myth this is.

2.Gays are "born that way". If this is true so are paedophiles,murderers,rapists etc therefore by logical extension no one should be held responsible for anything.

As per every thread when people think you can't go any lower you do. Well played.

You really can't be a real person but you come up with odd things to wind up on - particularly when you use your own name.

Lads why bother engaging in debate with him? He has his views and is devoutly Catholic. It's a waste of keyboard warrior time.  On this issue there is no room for manoeuvre. As much as his views disgust me I see little point in bothering.

Quote from: outinfront on November 11, 2015, 08:19:30 PM
Lads why bother engaging in debate with him? He has his views and is devoutly Catholic. It's a waste of keyboard warrior time.  On this issue there is no room for manoeuvre. As much as his views disgust me I see little point in bothering.

I don't really think they are his views. They just get him attention.

There is an excessive amount of adhominen, analogy fallacies and theophobia going on here, that I believe feed into your belief and entrench your position. What you are basically saying is that is it a matter for yourself and you should have a right to believe it? Correct?
If thats correct I have to ask why you continue to proclaim it, you should be comfortable in yourself on this to say it once and leave it. I therefore I believe that there is something in you that is trying to find a way to rationalise your acceptance of gays so I will continue on that premise.

So I will go back again to usury and credit cards, I will use a comparison between the two because both could be deemed sins in the Catholic church but are not illegal and are mostly accepted by mainstream society, however a question mark remains over the degree of their morality by some.

I dont think that there is any doubt that lending money at 20% plus would be not considered excessive but that's what these companies do. I know someone who works for one of these companies, has a family, sends their kids to Catholic school, goes to mass, and in general appears to live a life with the intent of keeping with the Catholic doctrine.
That is of course technically with the exception of their job....Now although their job would sit uncomfortably with myself I know they can rationalise it, with providing a service, providing jobs, etc etc so I would basically say fair enough if you can rationalise that the good outweighs the bad, more power to ye. It is for you if there is an issue with it come judegment day and I wont be making the call so you tear away.

Now if you compare this to another friend I have who is an educator and in monogamous same sex relationship, tho not religousc, appears to live a life in keeping with the word of God.
This person is not doing any harm to anyone, they are in a relationship that does not harm or affect anyone else, therefore they have no problem rationalising it. In fact to the letter of the Catholic morality they probably live a better life than me so who am I to judge or disassociate with them?

Should we condemn both of the above two persons or none? Because I can't fathom how it could be one and not the other. I instinctively believe that both these people are good people and they make their decisions on their life based on what they believe to be right and try earnestly to live a righteous life. Therefore I dont believe that they are wrong.
To compare what they do as comparable to murderers is way off the mark, this is instinctively something that I believe everyone knows to be wrong in their heart. In fact all sin is wrong in your heart and it is for this that we suffer both in this life and the next. If it is sin the above people will already be suffering with an inner struggle so you should actually have pity and compassion for them. To judge and shun them you could well be committing sin but that's something for yourself, ask yourself do you have inner struggle that you feel it is instinctively wrong to have a confrontary attitude to these people? The number of posts you have on the subject would suggest something is going on in your soul, but its a matter for you.


Also to finish this post with my signature pedantry I'll answer a couple of your previous points:
Jesus came to earth to save us from our sins, not some of us from some of your sins, all of us. We are all sinners.
and
....if you have a credit card at all it can easily be rationalised that you are aiding and abetting usury

BTW Maguire if you are trying to associate the Catholic church with young earthers  refer to J70's post above.
Catholic faith is not about denying the physical it about having faith in the non-physical/non-empirical . A significant contributor to the Big Bang (IMO half-ass!) theory was a Belgian Jesuit.

OmaghJoe,there is sufficient evidence in Scripture (the only basis for belief) and it's the strict teaching of every mainstream Christian Church that homosexuality is sinful.You cannot be subjective about these things or adopt an a la Carte approach,you are either Christian or you are not.Its as simple as that.

On my previous points I should have qualified by saying that the gay community is no longer a persecuted minority,I can't think of any other concept in my own lifetime that has been decriminalised and elevated to full equal status with age long normal activities/concepts.Also by the way,as the point was raised,the catholic professional and land owning class were never discriminated against,here or anywhere else,it was the working class that bore the brunt of the discrimination.

I don't believe gay people were "born this way" but was making the irrefutable point that logically if they are then so are murderers,paedophiles etc.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 09:35:36 PM
Whether Jesus existed,or is the Son of God can neither be proved or disproved.I,along with millions of others believe he did exist and was the Son of God.What is wrong with that? Why are so many,as evidenced by this thread,not content to simply disagree with this but feel the need to ridicule this belief? Deep down do they fear it might just be true,and that their eternal destiny is dark?

You can believe what you like. When you be believe in the ridiculous then you can expect to be ridiculed. That is only fair and just.

But you are not content to believe. You want the law to reflect your particular belief based solely on the fact that it is your belief.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 09:53:06 PM
Ridicule is ultimately the product of fear.

Presumably that is a random selection of words?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 09:53:06 PM
Do you think ridicule will alter my beliefs one iota?

Don't know

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 09:53:06 PM
Do you think I'm worried if my beliefs are ridiculed?

Don't care

Quote from: T Fearon on November 10, 2015, 10:15:04 PM
I am not being judgemental,simply expressing the beliefs shared largely by all mainstream Christian Churches.

If you think that you are not judgemental because some others agree with you then you do not understand the meaning  of the word judgemental and should, on that basis, refrain from using it

Tony if u condem them by that logic then you will also have to do the same for the money lenders as I demonstrated in the above examples. Are you really prepared to go down that line? You'd have to start poking holes in everyone lives as well if you wanted to be consistent

The logic for the murders is false. Thats a choice the indivual makes over his actions.
Its true they may not be born that way but environmental factors have likely a much bigger say in our physical and mental differences than DNA and genetics. Did u choose your fingerprints, your handedness?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 05:44:23 PM
I do not approve of the gay lifestyle, that does not mean I hate gays or would in any way harm them, and I am fully entitled to hold that view as are others to hold opposite views without being labelled emotionless,homophobic or any other extremist label.

You hold a view based upon a text of dubious veracity. But do not believe everything in that text. Therefore you hold those views because you chose to hold them - for reasons beyond their mere inclusion in the bible. Be honest and tell us what those reasons are.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 05:51:40 PM
Two other propositions I reject.

1.Gays are some persecuted minority.Look at the arrogance on display at any Gay Pride Parade and see the myth this is.

Describe this arrogance? Your word, so describe it.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 05:51:40 PM
2.Gays are "born that way". If this is true so are paedophiles,murderers,rapists etc therefore by logical extension no one should be held responsible for anything.

You really are a fcukwit of the highest order.
We can all see the harm that paedophiles, murderer and rapists do. If your "logical extension" is anything other than the ramblins of a deranged mind you will be able to illustrate the equivalent harm that being gay gives rise to?

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 11, 2015, 08:46:01 PM
BTW Maguire if you are trying to associate the Catholic church with young earthers  refer to J70's post above.
Catholic faith is not about denying the physical it about having faith in the non-physical/non-empirical . A significant contributor to the Big Bang (IMO half-ass!) theory was a Belgian Jesuit.

I wasn't. Just responding to the notion that because something was a belief, it must be beyond ridicule.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 09:13:50 PM
OmaghJoe,there is sufficient evidence in Scripture (the only basis for belief) and it's the strict teaching of every mainstream Christian Church that homosexuality is sinful.You cannot be subjective about these things or adopt an a la Carte approach,you are either Christian or you are not.Its as simple as that.

Do you belive in all of the bible, none of it or are you currently self-flagellating for you a-la-carte scum-baggery?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 09:13:50 PM
On my previous points I should have qualified by saying that the gay community is no longer a persecuted minority,I can't think of any other concept in my own lifetime that has been decriminalised and elevated to full equal status with age long normal activities/concepts.Also by the way,as the point was raised,the catholic professional and land owning class were never discriminated against,here or anywhere else,it was the working class that bore the brunt of the discrimination.

Being gay not normal then? Based upon what exactly?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 09:13:50 PM
I don't believe gay people were "born this way" but was making the irrefutable point that logically if they are then so are murderers,paedophiles etc.

Not born that way? Go on give us your rationale for why members of various species are gay

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 09:13:50 PM
OmaghJoe,there is sufficient evidence in Scripture (the only basis for belief) and it's the strict teaching of every mainstream Christian Church that homosexuality is sinful.You cannot be subjective about these things or adopt an a la Carte approach,you are either Christian or you are not.Its as simple as that.

Well you can be "a la carte" and you probably are. Homosexuality is but one thing that may be considered sinful in the Bible. What about eating prawns? What about getting tattoos? What about wearing clothes of mixed fabric? It's a very pick and mix approach to this "evidence" of what sin is.

When anyone's beliefs are based on 'cos the bible says...' I immediately don't bother. U cannot debate with morons. I do honestly believe that TF gets some sort of gratification from this tho...

The Bible is the basis of all belief.What else is there? No cities were destroyed on account of eating prawns or wearing mixed fibres.

If you don't believe in God fair enough,but don't try to say Jesus would condone sinful activity on the grounds of some happy clappy love for all regardless of what they do bollix.

The Unchristian Catholic

Please show me any mainstream Church (I'm not talking about Happy Clappy cults) that believes

1.Homosexuality is not sinful

2.That Jesus' mission was anything other than to save souls by getting people to turn away from sin

That's all I ask and upon receipt of these I will instantly alter my views

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 10:11:59 PM
The Bible is the basis of all belief.What else is there? No cities were destroyed on account of eating prawns or wearing mixed fibres.

Jesus wept.

We're now actually believing that cities were destroyed due to homosexuality.

Interestingly, we're also categorising sins, and discounting those that haven't destroyed cities. How very a la carte.

Show me the evidence as I requested in my previous post

What if the Church is wrong on some things Tony?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 07, 2015, 08:26:09 PM
What then is the point of the Ten Commandments? Read any Catholic Cathechism which makes it expressly clear that commission of a mortal sin and failure to repent sincerely will result in eternal damnation.

That is Catholic Church teaching, which simply informs my views.

Ever stay in a hotel on a Sunday? We all know you have no objections anyway, if you manage to get the right dates. The workers certainly don't "keep holy the Sabbath".  Could God infer that you are condoning the "sin" by availing of the services of sinners? Perhaps he thinks the same for supporting a team of paid soccer players who play on a Sunday? Would be interested in your interpretation of that commandment.

The Church takes its core beliefs from scripture, and the central message is that salvation is only attainable by accepting Jesus as the saviour and turn away from sin,but if you fail to do this there will be dire consequences. It's very simple. Now I can understand and respect people who don't believe this or in God,but what I cannot accept is the stupidity of people who suggest that there is another message,that Jesus love is unconditional and there will be no consequence for unrepentance.

The keeping Holy on the Sabbath is open to interpretation.It is possible to keep Holy while relaxing and resting in a Hotel or chilling out watching professional sport.No contradiction there at all.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 11:27:38 PM
The keeping Holy on the Sabbath is open to interpretation.It is possible to keep Holy while relaxing and resting in a Hotel or chilling out watching professional sport.No contradiction there at all.

But you are doing so in the full knowledge that "sinners" are responsible for your enjoyment as they are not keeping holy the Sabbath.

A lot of what the Church is based upon is and has been written by re-written over and over. There has been loads of flip flops over the centuries on Roman Catholic and I assume other Christian teachings. Google it to find the obvious ones. Plus they exercise massive control over the material that all this is actually based upon. 

So what does that say about the Roman Catholic church for instance as they hold the most material in my opinion. And more importantly what doe it say about God in general?

Well I think anyone can still say/claim that God is infallible and always will be.

But does it also mean that the Church is infallible or not? It's clear from history that it is not. And this raises the larger problem then as to how much guidance and how accurate this guidance is in a World where people of all walks of life are clamouring for greater equality.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 09:13:50 PM
OmaghJoe,there is sufficient evidence in Scripture (the only basis for belief) and it's the strict teaching of every mainstream Christian Church that homosexuality is sinful.You cannot be subjective about these things or adopt an a la Carte approach,you are either Christian or you are not.Its as simple as that.

Should someone be put to death for calling his father a fool? If someone hits his da should he "surely be put to death?"

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 11:27:38 PM
The keeping Holy on the Sabbath is open to interpretation.It is possible to keep Holy while relaxing and resting in a Hotel or chilling out watching professional sport.No contradiction there at all.

But you're "facilitating" the sin of those who ARE working. It's a bit like your B&B scenario.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 10:38:57 PM
Show me the evidence as I requested in my previous post

Evidence of what?

I am not facilitating sin.Keeping Holy could mean simply going to Mass.You could stay Holy and work at the same time.

I repeat that the core message of the Church has not changed over 2000 years.The Wedding at Canaan,where Jesus turned water into wine,was a union between a man and a woman.I guess that's the only type of marriage blessed and approved by God,judging by this example.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 06:58:51 AM
I am not facilitating sin.Keeping Holy could mean simply going to Mass.You could stay Holy and work at the same time.

You're being a bit blase about this commandment. There was no such thing as mass in Moses's time, so that can't be how God intended it to be interpreted. In Exodus 20 (where you'll find the commandments), the wording says that neither you, not your servants, not anyone in your village, should work on the Sabbath. By paying for services of people who choose to work, you are therefore condoning their choice.

Tony, you keep phrasing your posts like you are trying to find some sort of route to acceptance of gays. I earnestly offered you a theological route out of the struggle you are having with this.
But you pretty much ignored it and resorted to the old tired and tested fire and brimstone "in the bible" melarkey. Its your struggle Tony....

Everything you want is in bible, including a whole ream of contradictions, so it needs some level of interpretation. And the bible is not the basis of all belief in the Catholic church, that's just not true. Catholic faith and doctrine is based on a mixture of scripture, intuition, theology, and tradition.

If you where comfortable with how you view point why do you need to proclaim it over and over again from different directions. You either have to accept homosexuality or be at peace with your position.

BTW I admire your endurance against the relay team, Rios is now the latest to take up the baton, but the problem is your running about 5 races at once, seems kinda pointless the whole exercise, unless you get some kinda weird thrill out of it....? If you do fair play.

I also must admit myself to laughing out loud at some of your posts, half the time at you, half the time with you, the one about Sodom and Gomorah was particularly funny. Your fallacies are also good craic but I think the half of them are deliberate wha?

Whatever objection or point put to Tony that contradicts his devoutness to Catholicism he says its open to interpretation..... That's his get out right there..

Its people like him that has the church losing so many parishioners.... 30 years ago the church was filled at least 4/5 times on the Sunday.... Now? Well they'd struggle to get two. What's it going to be like in another 30?

They have changed so much of their view points over the last 30 years.... They will change it on Gay marriage also, what church will Tony belong to then??

But he's fecked up his own path to heaven by breaking so many of the 'rules' sex before marriage working Sabbaths.... Credit cards.... And of course the worse one name dropping!!

Good luck Tony.... You've managed to be the most annoying poster on the board, you've finally achieved greatness

Quote from: Nihilist on November 11, 2015, 11:41:32 PM
A lot of what the Church is based upon is and has been written by re-written over and over. There has been loads of flip flops over the centuries on Roman Catholic and I assume other Christian teachings. Google it to find the obvious ones. Plus they exercise massive control over the material that all this is actually based upon. 

So what does that say about the Roman Catholic church for instance as they hold the most material in my opinion. And more importantly what doe it say about God in general?

Well I think anyone can still say/claim that God is infallible and always will be.

But does it also mean that the Church is infallible or not? It's clear from history that it is not. And this raises the larger problem then as to how much guidance and how accurate this guidance is in a World where people of all walks of life are clamouring for greater equality.

This is a good point, the church is not perfect, as ultimately it is only a media through which the word of God passes, its through this media that the message gets scrambled or distorted.  The scandals of the the last two decades have highlighted its failings and also as you say the teachings and emphasis have evolved over time, however at the same time they have for the most part remarkably stayed similar as to what they have always been.

So they have been wrong in the past with indulgences and limbo and the like but it does not mean they are usually wrong or will be usually wrong in the future. Is there any other institution in a position to be our moral compass? Virtually everything else around these days base motivation is money. The media by default is becoming the moral compass for secular society over the past few decades and is thus a dangerous monster that instills outrage and anger in the population that can be seemingly turned on and off at will.

I believe that working with and in the church is still the best way forward for me as an individual and society as a whole. And that means asking the hard questions of the church until we get good solutions for our personal and societal problems. And when I say the church I dont necessarily mean the Curia, the church is its congregation, we should ask questions of the lay members and the clergy and try to move forward as one.

I take issue with Rois.An activity that is non sinful 6 days a week cannot be sinful on the 7th.

The Bible is open to interpretation,thats why we have so many different Churches,but on the issue in question,homosexuality it is clear and unambiguous and all Churches are in unison on this issue.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 10:18:19 AM
I take issue with Rois.An activity that is non sinful 6 days a week cannot be sinful on the 7th.

The Bible is open to interpretation,thats why we have so many different Churches,but on the issue in question,homosexuality it is clear and unambiguous and all Churches are in unison on this issue.

Incorrect!!!

http://www.gaychurch.org/

Sorry all mainstream Churches are in unison on subject of homosexuality

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 09:13:50 PM
OmaghJoe,there is sufficient evidence in Scripture (the only basis for belief) and it's the strict teaching of every mainstream Christian Church that homosexuality is sinful.You cannot be subjective about these things or adopt an a la Carte approach,you are either Christian or you are not.Its as simple as that.

On my previous points I should have qualified by saying that the gay community is no longer a persecuted minority,I can't think of any other concept in my own lifetime that has been decriminalised and elevated to full equal status with age long normal activities/concepts.Also by the way,as the point was raised,the catholic professional and land owning class were never discriminated against,here or anywhere else,it was the working class that bore the brunt of the discrimination.

I don't believe gay people were "born this way" but was making the irrefutable point that logically if they are then so are murderers,paedophiles etc.

Tony you are offensive in the extreme.

Quote from: Applesisapples on November 12, 2015, 03:46:59 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 09:13:50 PM
OmaghJoe,there is sufficient evidence in Scripture (the only basis for belief) and it's the strict teaching of every mainstream Christian Church that homosexuality is sinful.You cannot be subjective about these things or adopt an a la Carte approach,you are either Christian or you are not.Its as simple as that.

On my previous points I should have qualified by saying that the gay community is no longer a persecuted minority,I can't think of any other concept in my own lifetime that has been decriminalised and elevated to full equal status with age long normal activities/concepts.Also by the way,as the point was raised,the catholic professional and land owning class were never discriminated against,here or anywhere else,it was the working class that bore the brunt of the discrimination.

I don't believe gay people were "born this way" but was making the irrefutable point that logically if they are then so are murderers,paedophiles etc.

Tony you are offensive in the extreme.

Definitely not homophobic though. . .

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 10:18:19 AM
I take issue with Rois.An activity that is non sinful 6 days a week cannot be sinful on the 7th.

Ha! Now you want to introduce logic!

There is nothing illogical about faith.Creation is logical,as are births and deaths etc.

So who created earth? Was it created as said on the bible?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 05:47:59 PM
There is nothing illogical about faith.Creation is logical,as are births and deaths etc.

I asked you before:

Who did Cain and Abel marry?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 05:47:59 PM
There is nothing illogical about faith.Creation is logical,as are births and deaths etc.

You believe cities were destroyed as a result of homosexuality.

Quote from: muppet on November 12, 2015, 06:45:09 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 05:47:59 PM
There is nothing illogical about faith.Creation is logical,as are births and deaths etc.

I asked you before:

Who did Cain and Abel marry?

Maybe they just co habited........

There are a host of stories (some quite good ones actually) in the old testament. A lot are about a God that loses the cool or intervenes in what he sees as bad e.g. destroying the city of Babel. Also you have the story of Lots wife being turned into a pillar of salt for turning around to look. These are stories that you hear which I would associate with scaring the kids to say their prayers and be good.

The new testament is much more grown up. It also seems to be aimed at more adults and a lot of the message throughout are about being a better Christian. Jesus Christ has no time for those with money or power e.g. Scribes and Pharisees and moneylenders he chases from the Lords house. Also he says it's  "Easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter Heaven".

Its much more aimed at the poorer masses and those who are marginalised e.g. the Leper he cures or the woman who was about to be stoned for her perceived crimes. Overall those who had nothing but possibly the thought that Heaven was waiting for them when they died so they should carry on with the life they were born into no matter how miserable it was. There isn't any intervention from God either in the New testament until the crucifixion when the temple is torn apart.

Of course there are many questions left unanswered e.g.

1: Darwinism and the advancement of life over time.
2: Those mad crazy stories in the old testament (are we actually supposed to believe them?)
3: The morality of other stuff e.g. stem cell research, abortion, homosexuality, contraception etc. None of this existed 2000 years ago so was not dealt with. (Of course homosexuality did but it was very much a taboo subject back then - probably stoned to death unless you were rich and doing it with your slaves)

And your point is?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 09:24:03 PM
And your point is?

Who did Cain and Abel marry?

Who knows and what relevance has it? They were only bit players in the Genesis story

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 09:24:03 PM
And your point is?

That you're full of shite??

Yawn zzzzzz

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 10:48:34 PM
Who knows and what relevance has it? They were only bit players in the Genesis story

They were the 2nd generation of the entire human race, according to Genesis.

Their parents were were the first generation.

you said this: "Creation is logical,as are births and deaths etc."

They married their sisters Tony.

a) There was no one else

and

b) the Bible says so.

Then their kids married either their siblings or their first cousins.

Normally if first cousins marry, the couple would share a pair of grandparents, and would each have an unconnected pair of grandparents. If two brothers married two sisters, who were not related their new husbands, their kids would be called 'double first cousins', as they are first cousins on both sides. Unlike most first cousins, they would share two pairs of grandparents. This blood connection is considered far too close for marriage and today the Church wisely would object to such a marriage.

However, according to Genesis, Cain & Abel's kids could only have Adam and Eve as grandparents. And they could only have either Cain or Abel, or their siblings as parents. Thus any couple from the 3rd generation on earth, were double double first cousins.

This level of incest would be considered horrific, even in the distant past. However according to the Bible, it happened. The deformity in the offspring would be monstrous if this were true.

The good news is that some of the stars you see at night, prove that this is all nonsense. The time taken for the light from those stars to travel to us, is longer than the the Bible says the universe has existed. So either the stars that we see, can't exist, or the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, at best.

Don't expect Tony to answer hard questions. He prefers to spout insensitive and offensive homophobic vitriol and dress it up as faith. If that is his Catholic faith it certainly isn't one that I recognise, if Jesus were alive I'd say he'd be taking Tony to task for his unchristian like views. I'm disappointed that the mods have not censured him for some of the stuff he has written. 

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 10:48:34 PM
Who knows and what relevance has it? They were only bit players in the Genesis story

True, they certainly weren't as important as Phil Collins.

Quote from: laoislad on November 13, 2015, 11:21:46 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 10:48:34 PM
Who knows and what relevance has it? They were only bit players in the Genesis story

True, they certainly weren't as important as Phil Collins.

;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

I could have predicted that joke when I wrote the column.I don't think anyone seriously believes Adam and Eve existed,the tale is allegorical and intended to depict God as the creator of mankind

Quote from: T Fearon on November 13, 2015, 09:46:23 PM
I could have predicted that joke when I wrote the column.I don't think anyone seriously believes Adam and Eve existed,the tale is allegorical and intended to depict God as the creator of mankind

What paper is it in? Could you post it up in the thread?

Meant comment.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 13, 2015, 09:46:23 PM
I could have predicted that joke when I wrote the column.I don't think anyone seriously believes Adam and Eve existed,the tale is allegorical and intended to depict God as the creator of mankind

Could it therefore be a bunch of tales written by scribes to give morals and ultimately there really isn't a creator and you've been had?? Or do you just take what suits you and keep saying, that parts not real but this is??

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 14, 2015, 06:08:26 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 13, 2015, 09:46:23 PM
I could have predicted that joke when I wrote the column.I don't think anyone seriously believes Adam and Eve existed,the tale is allegorical and intended to depict God as the creator of mankind

Could it therefore be a bunch of tales written by scribes to give morals and ultimately there really isn't a creator and you've been had?? Or do you just take what suits you and keep saying, that parts not real but this is??

Ai!

Joshua 8:24-26

When the Israelite army finished chasing and killing all the men of Ai in the open fields, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai, including men and women, was wiped out that day—12,000 in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed.

The main point of reference should be the Gospels and life of Jesus.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 06:32:00 PM
The main point of reference should be the Gospels and life of Jesus.

Neither the Gospels nor Jesus said this, they spoke constantly about Scripture as they knew it.

Blessed is the word of Tony.

The Catholic Church and most mainstream churches focus on the life, parables and example of Jesus,hence the Catholic Church describes itself as Apostolic.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 06:43:32 PM
The Catholic Church and most mainstream churches focus on the life, parables and example of Jesus,hence the Catholic Church describes itself as Apostolic.

He spoke constantly of Scripture, why are they ignoring Him?

They are not ignoring him,they see him as the core message,the Saviour who died for the remission of sins and rose from the dead,and whose salvation is available to all who turn their back on sin

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 06:58:24 PM
They are not ignoring him,they see him as the core message,the Saviour who died for the remission of sins and rose from the dead,and whose salvation is available to all who turn their back on sin

He died for the remission of sins? What does that mean?

Anyway, he preached about the Old Testament and called it The Word of the God. As did all the Rabbis and Arab clerics at the time. And they still do now. Just with different interpretations and emphasis. And they all claim to be right.

Logically, there are two possibilities:

a) There is one correct religion and the rest have got it hopelessly wrong;

or

b) There is no correct religion;

This is for you Tony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc)

The core message is shared by all mainstream churches.Jesus is the saviour,belief in him and repentance from sin is necessary for eternal life.Beyond that,does ir matter if Adam and Eve did or didn't exist.Faith is a mystery (otherwise if wouldn't be faith it would be either proven fact or fiction).Thats why I focus on the central message only.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 09:03:06 PM
The core message is shared by all mainstream churches.Jesus is the saviour,belief in him and repentance from sin is necessary for eternal life.Beyond that,does ir matter if Adam and Eve did or didn't exist.Faith is a mystery (otherwise if wouldn't be faith it would be either proven fact or fiction).Thats why I focus on the central message only.

Jesus believed they did.

Was He wrong?

How do you know Jesus believed that literally?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 09:08:30 PM
How do you know Jesus believed that literally?

I don't. But you do.

Here is Matthew's Gospel, quoting Jesus, who is quoting the Old Testament and calling it 'what God said to you':

Matthew 22:31

31 But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.

God of the Prophets? What's wrong with that? Parts of the OT are allegorical while other parts (Moses etc) are real.The message remains unadulterated,the prediction of the coming of the Saviour

And the OT dietary laws and their ilk, proscribing various actions and requiring that adulterers be stoned, are they allegorical or real, Tony?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 11:41:06 PM
God of the Prophets? What's wrong with that? Parts of the OT are allegorical while other parts (Moses etc) are real.The message remains unadulterated,the prediction of the coming of the Saviour

Jesus called it the Word of God.

He didn't say part of it is the Word of God, or that bits are to taken with a grain of salt, for example, when it is discovered that the earth goes around the sun.

Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2015, 07:10:36 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 06:58:24 PM
They are not ignoring him,they see him as the core message,the Saviour who died for the remission of sins and rose from the dead,and whose salvation is available to all who turn their back on sin

He died for the remission of sins? What does that mean?

Anyway, he preached about the Old Testament and called it The Word of the God. As did all the Rabbis and Arab clerics at the time. And they still do now. Just with different interpretations and emphasis. And they all claim to be right.

Logically, there are two possibilities:

a) There is one correct religion and the rest have got it hopelessly wrong;

or

b) There is no correct religion;

This is for you Tony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc)

.....your Catholic thinking betrays you Muppet, there is a third option... that there are no incorrect religions...

Times change as do practices.The core message remains however.Repent and trust in Jesus as the Saviour.Do those two simple things then you don't need to worry about whether parts of the Bible are real or allegorical.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 14, 2015, 06:08:26 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 13, 2015, 09:46:23 PM
I could have predicted that joke when I wrote the column.I don't think anyone seriously believes Adam and Eve existed,the tale is allegorical and intended to depict God as the creator of mankind

Could it therefore be a bunch of tales written by scribes to give morals and ultimately there really isn't a creator and you've been had?? Or do you just take what suits you and keep saying, that parts not real but this is??

I think that God was certainly working through the scribes and prophets to convey his message (which where the morals) but the scribes where limited to their own physical knowledge of the time. Revealing the theory of evolution to a nomadic tribe with little or no education especially on the physical sciences, might have left them a bit perplexed and the message would surely have been lost.

Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2015, 11:22:20 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 09:08:30 PM
How do you know Jesus believed that literally?

I don't. But you do.

Here is Matthew's Gospel, quoting Jesus, who is quoting the Old Testament and calling it 'what God said to you':

Matthew 22:31

31 But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.

But sure didnt he also contradict it more times than enough as well... for example telling the Pharisees that Moses was incorrect about divorce?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 07:55:49 AM
Times change as do practices.

Yes, like marriage.

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 15, 2015, 07:41:36 AM

Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2015, 07:10:36 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 06:58:24 PM
They are not ignoring him,they see him as the core message,the Saviour who died for the remission of sins and rose from the dead,and whose salvation is available to all who turn their back on sin

He died for the remission of sins? What does that mean?

Anyway, he preached about the Old Testament and called it The Word of the God. As did all the Rabbis and Arab clerics at the time. And they still do now. Just with different interpretations and emphasis. And they all claim to be right.

Logically, there are two possibilities:

a) There is one correct religion and the rest have got it hopelessly wrong;

or

b) There is no correct religion;

This is for you Tony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc)

.....your Catholic thinking betrays you Muppet, there is a third option... that there are no incorrect religions...

How is that possible when they all contradict each other?

I am not familiar with the 'Religiously Correct' brigade.

Practices change, for example stoning adulterers is out,as Jesus pointed out a more compassionate way to help people turn away from sin.But sin is still sin.

Jesus, are you still going on about this Fearon?

Is that question addressed to Jesus or me?

I'm sure in your mind they are one and the same.

Quote from: easytiger95 on November 15, 2015, 12:10:48 PM
I'm sure in your mind they are one and the same.

Similar to Islamic State and they way they engage in Scriptural Gymnastics to justify everything.

Quote from: muppet on November 15, 2015, 01:09:44 PM

Quote from: easytiger95 on November 15, 2015, 12:10:48 PM
I'm sure in your mind they are one and the same.

Similar to Islamic State and they way they engage in Scriptural Gymnastics to justify everything.

Catholic teaching has lost its popular moorings and is getting left behind.

Sinn Fein and SDLP both experienced a decline in votes in the last election.Undoubtedly this was due in part to veering from Catholic teaching on moral issues.Already even the DUP are making noises about their confidence in winning support from traditional Catholics,as the pipe dream of Irish unity recedes.

The Archbishop of Armagh is a relatively young Derry man, if he has any sense the new young Derry leader of the SDLP will have a meeting with him in the near future

Yes I can see it now.

Irishman and women sell a United Ireland in return for the right to be homophobic.

If Loyalists had a brain between them they should drop the stupid flegs and raise 'Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve' banners, and they would route SF/SDLP within the year. Who would have though the wee 6 was so uncomplicated?

Expanding on this narrow-mindedness, if SF/SDLP do manage to get same-sex marriage through, would they be able to buy a United Ireland from the homophobes on the other side by selling it back?

Quote from: muppet on November 15, 2015, 04:51:08 PM
Yes I can see it now.

Irishman and women sell a United Ireland in return for the right to be homophobic.

If Loyalists had a brain between them they should drop the stupid flegs and raise 'Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve' banners, and they would route SF/SDLP within the year. Who would have though the wee 6 was so uncomplicated?

Expanding on this narrow-mindedness, if SF/SDLP do manage to get same-sex marriage through, would they be able to buy a United Ireland from the homophobes on the other side by selling it back?

But a united Ireland is natural - how would homophobes square the circle ?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 03:35:32 PM
Sinn Fein and SDLP both experienced a decline in votes in the last election.Undoubtedly this was due in part to veering from Catholic teaching on moral issues.Already even the DUP are making noises about their confidence in winning support from traditional Catholics,as the pipe dream of Irish unity recedes.

The Archbishop of Armagh is a relatively young Derry man, if he has any sense the new young Derry leader of the SDLP will have a meeting with him in the near future

Seriously?? Where do you get these figures or do you just make them up??

Well the Shinners lost a seat and both parties saw a drop in their vote.DUP hovering round the traditional catholic vote and Robinson all smiles with the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor at Stormont.Whatever you think of them the DUP do have moral convictions that they defend.

Muppet in any unlikely United Ireland parties will be needed to defend unique Ulster values,which none of the 26 counties parties would be remotely capable of doing

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 05:52:11 PM
Well the Shinners lost a seat and both parties saw a drop in their vote.DUP hovering round the traditional catholic vote and Robinson all smiles with the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor at Stormont.Whatever you think of them the DUP do have moral convictions that they defend.

Muppet in any unlikely United Ireland parties will be needed to defend unique Ulster values,which none of the 26 counties parties would be remotely capable of doing

But where are  the figures or polls even, I'll take that ffs!! Robinson has no morale convictions and you'd be a complete twat to believe that.... His list for being highly unmoral is as long as your lists of threads on these boards

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 05:52:11 PM
Well the Shinners lost a seat and both parties saw a drop in their vote.DUP hovering round the traditional catholic vote and Robinson all smiles with the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor at Stormont.Whatever you think of them the DUP do have moral convictions that they defend.

Muppet in any unlikely United Ireland parties will be needed to defend unique Ulster values,which none of the 26 counties parties would be remotely capable of doing

Donegal Cavan and Monaghan should come back into the Union so.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 05:52:11 PM
Well the Shinners lost a seat and both parties saw a drop in their vote.DUP hovering round the traditional catholic vote and Robinson all smiles with the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor at Stormont.Whatever you think of them the DUP do have moral convictions that they defend.

Muppet in any unlikely United Ireland parties will be needed to defend unique Ulster values,which none of the 26 counties parties would be remotely capable of doing

The Unionist parties can do that.

What bits would be left out then?

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 15, 2015, 06:00:52 PMHis list for being highly unmoral is as long as your lists of threads on these boards

Would be a long list. Tony has started 633 threads on this board to date.

There are certain values both communities in the six counties share which would be culturally alien to the free state.Im thinking

Social Conservatism

Thrift

Religious belief

Plain speaking.

I do not remotely identify with any free state parties currently ,so I doubt if any protestant/ unionist does

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 07:14:53 PM
There are certain values both communities in the six counties share which would be culturally alien to the free state.Im thinking

Social Conservatism

Thrift

Religious belief

Plain speaking.

I do not remotely identify with any free state parties currently ,so I doubt if any protestant/ unionist does

But you're happy with Robinson... You are the ultimate WUM... I wonder did he stone his wife, as per scriptures??

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 07:14:53 PM
There are certain values both communities in the six counties share which would be culturally alien to the free state.Im thinking

Social Conservatism

Thrift

Religious belief

Plain speaking.

I do not remotely identify with any free state parties currently ,so I doubt if any protestant/ unionist does

Good man.

So the these are 'unique Ulster values':

Social conservatism = religion

Thrift = my hole - you live on handouts from London

Religious beliefs = religions

Plain speaking = are you joking?






Here are some uniquely Tony Fearon values:

Me = the world

My experiences = everyone's experiences

My values = all that matters

My loyalty = to whoever gives me what I want

Seeing as the Free State has gone out of existence since the 1930s I don't think anyone can identify with the parties that were in it.
As for you and Unionists....... Ye're welcome to each other ::).
I suspect if there was a people's vote on same sex marriage in the 6 Cos it would pass.

You live in a highly disfunctional land. Disfunctional due to incomptence, bigotry, hypocrisy,hatred, probable corruption and the list goes on. All these "values" are core to the dup.

Yes we should admire them because they ban gay marriage and curb sunday opening hours  :-X

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 05:52:11 PM
Well the Shinners lost a seat and both parties saw a drop in their vote.DUP hovering round the traditional catholic vote and Robinson all smiles with the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor at Stormont.Whatever you think of them the DUP do have moral convictions that they defend.

Muppet in any unlikely United Ireland parties will be needed to defend unique Ulster values,which none of the 26 counties parties would be remotely capable of doing

Those values again? 1950s eternal. Ulster fries. No. Marriage is between a man and a woman . Not between 2 men and preferably not between people of different religions. No surrender. No fast transport links beyond Lough Neagh . Handouts not hands up.  Leisure centres. 

Seriously boys the cultural difference between nationalists North and South is stark never mind unionists.As far back as the 70s Gerry Fitt said he had more in common with a Belfast Protestant than with a Cork Catholic.

Guess that's what a hundred years of partition does

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 08:10:47 PM
Seriously boys the cultural difference between nationalists North and South is stark never mind unionists.As far back as the 70s Gerry Fitt said he had more in common with a Belfast Protestant than with a Cork Catholic.

Guess that's what a hundred years of partition does

even just 20 years of watching different telly, having different school systems etc  would create huge differences.
But if a UI becomes inevitable the kids will adapt. 

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 07:14:53 PM
There are certain values both communities in the six counties share which would be culturally alien to the free state.Im thinking

Social Conservatism

Thrift

Religious belief

Plain speaking.

Yet the recent poll run by RTE/BBC showed there wasn't much of a difference north and south on same sex marriage, for example (64% in NI, 67% in south). Your view of NI is warped because the likes of the Free Presbyterians represent a tiny proportion of the population, but a significant proportion of those on the unionist benches in Stormont.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 10:11:59 PM
The Bible is the basis of all belief.What else is there?

Tony - a dangerous argument that. You are basically accepting that if the bible proves to be an ureliable load of bollocks that faith, in turn will pove to be that very same load of nads.good look with that one.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 10:11:59 PM
No cities were destroyed on account of eating prawns or wearing mixed fibres.

Any city saved based o the turning over of one of its daughters to be anally raped until she died is one with a terrible history and not one with anything to offer morality.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 10:25:59 PM
Please show me any mainstream Church (I'm not talking about Happy Clappy cults) that believes

1.Homosexuality is not sinful

2.That Jesus' mission was anything other than to save souls by getting people to turn away from sin

That's all I ask and upon receipt of these I will instantly alter my views

Where are you seeking to see this evidence of what is or is not sinful or what was or was not Jesus's purpose.

Certainly noboby credible would argue that the bible was a baramoter of what was good or bad or that it was in any way an accurate testament of Jesus's life and work - therefore what else are you going to accept as evidence????????

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 10:38:57 PM
Show me the evidence as I requested in my previous post

I would very much welcome you grasping some sort of clue, even if not a full understanding of what evidence actually means.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 11:24:45 PM
The Church takes its core beliefs from scripture, and the central message is that salvation is only attainable by accepting Jesus as the saviour and turn away from sin,but if you fail to do this there will be dire consequences. It's very simple. Now I can understand and respect people who don't believe this or in God,but what I cannot accept is the stupidity of people who suggest that there is another message,that Jesus love is unconditional and there will be no consequence for unrepentance.

Is god a hallow individual????

He/she/it presents an uncompelling argument for their own existence. In an earlier post you demand evidence. I demand evidence in my life. I find myself convinced by evidence and unconvinced by anything else. Basically I buy into the argument in favour evidence that you hide behind. If God exists and hangs his hat on evidence you and i are fcuked

Quote from: T Fearon on November 11, 2015, 11:27:38 PM
The keeping Holy on the Sabbath is open to interpretation.It is possible to keep Holy while relaxing and resting in a Hotel or chilling out watching professional sport.No contradiction there at all.

Everything is open to interpretation. Can you deal with that?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 11:56:34 AM
Sorry all mainstream Churches are in unison on subject of homosexuality

Is popularity where you find shelter?

Stand in upper bann and see what popular cover you have. Stand on your beliefs, your principles and your track record and count the votes

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 05:47:59 PM
There is nothing illogical about faith.Creation is logical,as are births and deaths etc.

Really??

Explain the existence of anything by creationism. What happened first?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 12, 2015, 10:48:34 PM
Who knows and what relevance has it? They were only bit players in the Genesis story

What big time players in the bible condemned homosexuality? Who were the big time players and what did they have to say on this matter?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 06:32:00 PM
The main point of reference should be the Gospels and life of Jesus.

Remind me of his views on the important issue of homosexuality?

What did he say of those obsessed by rules and ignorant of compassion?

Have I not already differentiated between faith and fact and explained the basic tenet that much of faith is mysterious,otherwise it wouldn't be faith it would be fact? Do peruse my contributions comprehensively before making foolish comments and posing questions I've already answered.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 06:58:24 PM
They are not ignoring him,they see him as the core message,the Saviour who died for the remission of sins and rose from the dead,and whose salvation is available to all who turn their back on sin

And again - his views on the important issue of homosexuality???

There is no flexibility in terms of sin,and no compassion for or tolerance of sin

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 09:03:06 PM
The core message is shared by all mainstream churches.Jesus is the saviour,belief in him and repentance from sin is necessary for eternal life.Beyond that,does ir matter if Adam and Eve did or didn't exist.Faith is a mystery (otherwise if wouldn't be faith it would be either proven fact or fiction).Thats why I focus on the central message only.

Who wrote this central message? What language did they write it in?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 09:08:30 PM
How do you know Jesus believed that literally?

How do we know Jesus believed anything - literally or otherwise??

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 11:41:06 PM
God of the Prophets? What's wrong with that? Parts of the OT are allegorical while other parts (Moses etc) are real.The message remains unadulterated,the prediction of the coming of the Saviour

Moses was a terrible human being. Are you claiming him as an ally?

What are the rules that determine which parts are real and which parts are fictional?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 07:55:49 AM
Times change as do practices.

Ahh - so the bible was of its time but now out of date??

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 03:35:32 PM
Sinn Fein and SDLP both experienced a decline in votes in the last election.Undoubtedly this was due in part to veering from Catholic teaching on moral issues.Already even the DUP are making noises about their confidence in winning support from traditional Catholics,as the pipe dream of Irish unity recedes.

The Archbishop of Armagh is a relatively young Derry man, if he has any sense the new young Derry leader of the SDLP will have a meeting with him in the near future

Can we add undoubtedly to the list of words Tony doesn't understand?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 05:52:11 PM
Well the Shinners lost a seat and both parties saw a drop in their vote.DUP hovering round the traditional catholic vote and Robinson all smiles with the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor at Stormont.Whatever you think of them the DUP do have moral convictions that they defend.

Muppet in any unlikely United Ireland parties will be needed to defend unique Ulster values,which none of the 26 counties parties would be remotely capable of doing

Where is your proof that a generally declining voter turnout is not the issue? that a declining belief in a united ireland is not the issue?

We are back to evidence here. Where is your evidence?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 09:56:44 PM
Have I not already differentiated between faith and fact and explained the basic tenet that much of faith is mysterious,otherwise it wouldn't be faith it would be fact? Do peruse my contributions comprehensively before making foolish comments and posing questions I've already answered.

Tony is exempt form the need to provide evidence but anybody he argues with is not. Delusional

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 09:58:36 PM
There is no flexibility in terms of sin,and no compassion for or tolerance of sin

No doubt based on a quote from Jesus. Show us the quote.

*munches popcorn*

Quote from: T Fearon on November 15, 2015, 09:58:36 PM
There is no flexibility in terms of sin,and no compassion for or tolerance of sin

ISIS 3:16?

3:7.

I have avoided this thread as being very typical TF wind  up material, or possibly even scarier what he actually believes (not thinks- believes).
However I accidentally clicked on it this morning and when I was here i was gutted not to see my old pal Jack

(http://memecrunch.com/meme/6SGNM/ecumenical-matter/image.png?w=480&c=1)

Quote from: muppet on November 15, 2015, 10:00:56 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 15, 2015, 07:41:36 AM

Quote from: muppet on November 14, 2015, 07:10:36 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 06:58:24 PM
They are not ignoring him,they see him as the core message,the Saviour who died for the remission of sins and rose from the dead,and whose salvation is available to all who turn their back on sin

He died for the remission of sins? What does that mean?

Anyway, he preached about the Old Testament and called it The Word of the God. As did all the Rabbis and Arab clerics at the time. And they still do now. Just with different interpretations and emphasis. And they all claim to be right.

Logically, there are two possibilities:

a) There is one correct religion and the rest have got it hopelessly wrong;

or

b) There is no correct religion;

This is for you Tony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc)

.....your Catholic thinking betrays you Muppet, there is a third option... that there are no incorrect religions...

How is that possible when they all contradict each other?

I am not familiar with the 'Religiously Correct' brigade.

Some religions and other organisations dont believe that any religion is incorrect. In that religion is just a way of acknowledging and following an intuition of the spiritual.

The Dogma of Catholism of course does not allow this. But I had a discussion with a Hindu chap who adhered to Hinduism and also believed that Jesus was the son of God and came back from the dead and studied his teachings. He didnt see any contradiction with Hinduism.

If you follow the core belief that Jesus is the Saviour and you repent and avoid serious sin,that's all you need.No point in complicating matters.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 16, 2015, 07:25:07 PM
If you follow the core belief that Jesus is the Saviour and you repent and avoid serious sin,that's all you need.No point in complicating matters.

Tony's Revelations: 3:7

But you seem to have revised the text. Are you sure you're not making this up as you go along? For example, where is the disowning family members gone to?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 16, 2015, 07:25:07 PM
If you follow the core belief that Jesus is the Saviour and you repent and avoid serious sin,that's all you need.No point in complicating matters.

Serious sin.... Fecking laughable... And ultimately if you 'repent' then its all good .  Saviour , he's done plenty of saving lately. Nice chap this guy, he's doing well in Kenya, Paris, Beirut and Syria at the minute..... He must be on his holidays

Ye  have to die to be saved ;)

Was not a thief who repented on the cross,saved?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 16, 2015, 07:25:07 PM
If you follow the core belief that Jesus is the Saviour and you repent and avoid serious sin,that's all you need.No point in complicating matters.

Hmmm, so we only have to worry about "serious" sin... surely homosexuality is a fairly minor indiscretion then? It's not like theft, murder, assault, infidelity or any number of other sins where someone gets hurt.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 16, 2015, 09:17:06 PM
Was not a thief who repented on the cross,saved?

Can you prove that?

No,as I wasn't there.But as I said faith is not capable of being factually proven

Quote from: T Fearon on November 16, 2015, 10:37:49 PM
No,as I wasn't there.But as I said faith is not capable of being factually proven

Blind faith is a dangerous weapon don't you think?? In the wrong hands can lead to sinful things

My faith is not blind.It is intuitive and based on the quite logical necessity of a greater power that created this world and makes all of nature happen.

Does it not say in the bible somewhere that people should not engage with Tony as he is a looper. Well if it doesn't say that it should. Maybe in the next edition?

So why are you doing so?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 16, 2015, 11:00:49 PM
My faith is not blind.It is intuitive and based on the quite logical necessity of a greater power that created this world and makes all of nature happen.

Why do you jump from that, to cherry-picking bits of a book written by unknown authors thousands of years ago?

I don't cherry pick,I follow the message of salvation and example of Jesus.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 16, 2015, 11:00:49 PM
My faith is not blind.It is intuitive and based on the quite logical necessity of a greater power that created this world and makes all of nature happen.

Wouldn't say its a logical necessity per se, at least if yer talking in terms of how we presently understand the world/universe in the empirical way. Your endanger of retreating to the God of Gaps which would be contrary to faith.

But there is probably as much logic to it than the infinity that is proposed.

Science explains how it happened not why.Faith has a mysterious perspective otherwise it would be fact.

Science actually doesn't presently ultimately explain how, of course im not saying that they wont...

But its an irrelevant discussion to faith.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 16, 2015, 11:55:11 PM
I don't cherry pick,I follow the message of salvation and example of Jesus.

You don't dress like him,
eat like him,
speak like him,
wash like him,
pray like him,
or refer to The Old Testament like him.

Although you do preach like him in fairness.

If you went to a Spurs match you would more resemble a follower than you do Jesus.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 14, 2015, 06:32:00 PM
The main point of reference should be the Gospels and life of Jesus.

Contradicting yourself there.

I like Jesus

Wear clothing
Eat via my mouth
Speak using my tongue
Wash with water
Pray in a kneeling position
And refer to scripture

What do you really know about Jesus?? Did he have a wife/girlfriend? Kids? Did Mary and Joe have other kids?? Where did he go for so many years? What did he work at?? Did he join a religious cult and give off about the Westerns' (Romans')? So many things he could have done during that lost time

It is all irrelevant to his mission, the redemption of sin by death on the cross

Quote from: T Fearon on November 17, 2015, 10:06:18 PM
It is all irrelevant to his mission, the redemption of sin by death on the cross

You truly are blind, bit like the radicals in Paris ;)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 17, 2015, 08:40:53 PM
I like Jesus

Wear clothing
Eat via my mouth
Speak using my tongue
Wash with water
Pray in a kneeling position
And refer to scripture

So do gays.

And you know this how?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 18, 2015, 12:12:27 AM
And you know this how?

Aside from all of the gay priests who all of the above and more, I know plenty of gay people who are practising Catholics.

It is interesting to think you have probably walked up to a gay priest and stuck out your tongue for him to place something on it.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well it took u a day or so Muppet but it was worth the wait
:D :D :D

T Fearon - seeing as you are on the side of the "church & Bible" w.r.t. the issue of Gay marriage, what is your side/take on the rights of other groups to get married e.g. people with disabilities like Down Syndrome? Should they be allowed get married as currently they cannot?

Quote from: muppet on November 18, 2015, 09:02:13 PM
It is interesting to think you have probably walked up to a gay priest and stuck out your tongue for him to place something on it.

The poor priest...

Gay dentists can also put things in your mouth too.Have no objection to any opposite sex couple marrying,regardless of disability.

Tony - if you faith compelled you to do something that you knew was illegal - what would you do?

Yes.My beliefs supercede often misguided man made laws.

Tony you have singularly failed to answer any question I have put in relation to Jesus' teaching regarding the sinfulness or other wise of gay people. Relying on the Old Testament, yet when challenged earlier in the thread on the OT you claimed to follow Jesus' teaching, which is it? Or are you just the WUM everyone believes you to be. And you still haven't apologised for your outrageous and hurtful comments about Gays...very Christian...not! That log in your eye is the size of a forest. 

Quote from: T Fearon on November 20, 2015, 04:41:26 PM
Gay dentists can also put things in your mouth too.

Fair play Tony.

It takes a big man to admit it.

Apples how many times do I have to say this.Jesus' compassion was not unconditional,it was extended to sinners with the aim of getting them to recognise their sin and repent.Jesus would have no compassion for a gay atheist for example.Read the Gospels and Jesus' frequent dire warnings of what awaits those who do not heed his call to believe in him and repent.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 20, 2015, 10:17:38 PM
Apples how many times do I have to say this.Jesus' compassion was not unconditional,it was extended to sinners with the aim of getting them to recognise their sin and repent.Jesus would have no compassion for a gay atheist for example.Read the Gospels and Jesus' frequent dire warnings of what awaits those who do not heed his call to believe in him and repent.

Why don't you back up your claims and post them yourself?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 20, 2015, 10:17:38 PM
Apples how many times do I have to say this.Jesus' compassion was not unconditional,it was extended to sinners with the aim of getting them to recognise their sin and repent.Jesus would have no compassion for a gay atheist for example.Read the Gospels and Jesus' frequent dire warnings of what awaits those who do not heed his call to believe in him and repent.

Tony, would you not think those warnings were specifically for the Jews of His day?
If a baptised Catholic who sins all over the place( gay/straight/agnostic/atheist) gets run over by a car gets anointed before he dies....?

If the anointment is accompanied by a sincere confession/Act of contrition,from what we know,that should be ok.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 21, 2015, 02:04:19 AM
If the anointment is accompanied by a sincere confession/Act of contrition,from what we know,that should be ok.

i.e. absolutely nothing

Quote from: T Fearon on November 20, 2015, 10:17:38 PM
Apples how many times do I have to say this.Jesus' compassion was not unconditional,it was extended to sinners with the aim of getting them to recognise their sin and repent.Jesus would have no compassion for a gay atheist for example.Read the Gospels and Jesus' frequent dire warnings of what awaits those who do not heed his call to believe in him and repent.

Only gay atheists?

Now can you imagine the outrage if they refused to display an ad supporting Gay Marriage? >:(

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 06:32:11 PM
Now can you imagine the outrage if they refused to display an ad supporting Gay Marriage? >:(

Gay marriage isn't religious

If a bakery refuses to ice a message on a cake supporting gay marriage,and is subsequently charged with breaching equality laws,surely cinemas can be charged with discriminating against the Christian community

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 06:43:18 PM
If a bakery refuses to ice a message on a cake supporting gay marriage,and is subsequently charged with breaching equality laws,surely cinemas can be charged with discriminating against the Christian community

Not if they have a policy of not showing religious or political advertisements. Surely this ad falls within that category? For the record I'm opposed to all ads at cinemas, regardless of content.

Therefore why can't a business have a policy of not endorsing or advertising gay marriage?

Sorry but i could not resist this worn out caption.

(http://i50.tinypic.com/301lf8w.jpg)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 07:11:59 PM
Therefore why can't a business have a policy of not endorsing or advertising gay marriage?

They can. But they'll possibly face a breach of equality legislation.

That is entirely different to a body overseeing advertisements in cinemas implementing a policy of no political/religious adverts. I'm sure a pro-gay marriage ad would likewise not be screened. Would you complain then?

yet another thread....really?

Quote from: outinfront on November 23, 2015, 07:29:30 PM
yet another thread....really?

He's on an evangelical crusade to convert us 1 thread at a time!!

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think the cinema should have refused.

Sheer bigoted intolerance against Christians,now the most persecuted group in society in terms of denial of rights

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 08:29:55 PM
Sheer bigoted intolerance against Christians,now the most persecuted group in society in terms of denial of rights

And I wonder how that all happened to such an open organisation.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 08:29:55 PM
Sheer bigoted intolerance against Christians,now the most persecuted group in society in terms of denial of rights

What rights are they being denied?

Quote from: ziggysego on November 23, 2015, 08:27:55 PM
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think the cinema should have refused.

Hard to know when he's given us zero details!

An article on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer)


The Ad.

http://www.justpray.uk/ (http://www.justpray.uk/)

Quote from: From the Bunker on November 23, 2015, 09:21:58 PM
An article on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer)


The Ad.

http://www.justpray.uk/ (http://www.justpray.uk/)

Seems pretty straightforward that these companies want to stay the hell away from religious issues.

If they chose to air Jewish or Muslim prayer ads or Richard Dawkins telling the audience they were all wishful thinking morons for believing in prayer, but refused the CofE ad, then Tony's whining about persecution might be warranted. If its a case of "f**k the lot of yez", I don't see any cause for complaint. And certainly no evidence of persecution.

Which is not to say that people should not be a little  more thick skinned and tolerant of diversity!

As an atheist I would be too bothered by such an ad.

But then again I grew up in Ireland with religion  being shoved down my gob at every turn!

Does RTE still broadcast the Angelus?

Why would promoting spiritually be a problem?

Quote from: From the Bunker on November 23, 2015, 09:21:58 PM
An article on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer)


The Ad.

http://www.justpray.uk/ (http://www.justpray.uk/)

I like to think that I am fair minded person (although I still haven't forgiven Philip Jordan for 2003) but Atheists cannot have their cake and eat it.

Will the demand to change Easter Holidays to "the Sunday following the paschal full moon" Holidays?

Will the term Christmas Holidays offend them too?

The cinema chain has made a silly decision letting this nonsense happen.

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 09:41:13 PM

Quote from: From the Bunker on November 23, 2015, 09:21:58 PM
An article on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer)


The Ad.

http://www.justpray.uk/ (http://www.justpray.uk/)

Seems pretty straightforward that these companies want to stay the hell away from religious issues.

If they chose to air Jewish or Muslim prayer ads or Richard Dawkins telling the audience they were all wishful thinking morons for believing in prayer, but refused the CofE ad, then Tony's whining about persecution might be warranted. If its a case of "f**k the lot of yez", I don't see any cause for complaint. And certainly no evidence of persecution.

Which is not to say that people should not be a little  more thick skinned and tolerant of diversity!

As an atheist I would be too bothered by such an ad.

But then again I grew up in Ireland with religion  being shoved down my gob at every turn!

Does RTE still broadcast the Angelus?

I've no problem with the Angelus. Nor should anyone in the british isles. If people want this place to become a Muslim country then the cinema chain are going the right way about it.

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 09:56:06 PM

Quote from: From the Bunker on November 23, 2015, 09:21:58 PM
An article on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer)


The Ad.

http://www.justpray.uk/ (http://www.justpray.uk/)

I like to think that I am fair minded person (although I still haven't forgiven Philip Jordan for 2003) but Atheists cannot have their cake and eat it.

Will the demand to change Easter Holidays to "the Sunday following the paschal full moon" Holidays?

Will the term Christmas Holidays offend them too?

The cinema chain has made a silly decision letting this nonsense happen.

Its not Philly Jordan's fault alone that Tyrone where better than Armagh, you should blame the whole Tyrone team, or better still, blame Armagh players for not being good enough. Remember you had Phillip Loughran on that team and Francie Bellew.....

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 09:58:58 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 09:41:13 PM

Quote from: From the Bunker on November 23, 2015, 09:21:58 PM
An article on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer)


The Ad.

http://www.justpray.uk/ (http://www.justpray.uk/)

Seems pretty straightforward that these companies want to stay the hell away from religious issues.

If they chose to air Jewish or Muslim prayer ads or Richard Dawkins telling the audience they were all wishful thinking morons for believing in prayer, but refused the CofE ad, then Tony's whining about persecution might be warranted. If its a case of "f**k the lot of yez", I don't see any cause for complaint. And certainly no evidence of persecution.

Which is not to say that people should not be a little  more thick skinned and tolerant of diversity!

As an atheist I would be too bothered by such an ad.

But then again I grew up in Ireland with religion  being shoved down my gob at every turn!

Does RTE still broadcast the Angelus?

I've no problem with the Angelus. Nor should anyone in the british isles. If people want this place to become a Muslim country then the cinema chain are going the right way about it.

Not a Muslim country, just a secular one.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 08:29:55 PM
Sheer bigoted intolerance against Christians,now the most persecuted group in society in terms of denial of rights

I'd have no particular problem with the advert, but there's no persecution here and I can't see any rights being denied.

Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2015, 10:08:52 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 08:29:55 PM
Sheer bigoted intolerance against Christians,now the most persecuted group in society in terms of denial of rights

I'd have no particular problem with the advert, but there's no persecution here and I can't see any rights being denied.

Correct. An atheist spokesperson on the news said that this could open the door for other religions to advertise. And that was the height of his argument! I wouldn't mind watching an advert for Druids, as long as it included naked dancing ladies.

Why isn't there one thread on religion for this poster to put all his religious themed threads into. It always ends up in the same argument.

Can there be any greater insult than something you believe in,and is totally innocuous, is deemed so gratuitously offensive that it is banned from being displayed in an ordinary family everyday place of entertainment?

It is time the impact of these decisions on Christians was evaluated.Many years ago,Basil Brooke,North of Ireland Prime Minister,was castigated (and is in fact still up to this day castigated) for saying "He didn't want a Catholic about the place". Banning something as innocuous as the Lord's Prayer from the cinema is effectively society saying it doesn't want a Christian about the place.

Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

Quote from: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:06:10 PM
Tony - if you faith compelled you to do something that you knew was illegal - what would you do?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 20, 2015, 06:26:41 PM
Yes.My beliefs supercede often misguided man made laws.

Tony is backing the jihadists and their Paris and Beirut exploits presumably.

Personally I think people with crazy beliefs need to challenged

It is by inference.Thankfully RTE still broadcasts Sunday Services live,as does BBC Radio and TV.Why have cinema operators binned an ad that would last no more than a minute or two.Also it's not so long ago that they were happy to rake in piles of cash at the Box Office with Mel Gibson's portrayal of Christ.

I most certainly do not back jihadists,but as was the case with Ashers,I would prioritise my Christian beliefs (which are mainstream and not fundamentalist) over man made laws when there is a conflict between the two

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 10:36:57 PM
Can there be any greater insult than something you believe in,and is totally innocuous, is deemed so gratuitously offensive that it is banned from being displayed in an ordinary family everyday place of entertainment?

It is time the impact of these decisions on Christians was evaluated.Many years ago,Basil Brooke,North of Ireland Prime Minister,was castigated (and is in fact still up to this day castigated) for saying "He didn't want a Catholic about the place". Banning something as innocuous as the Lord's Prayer from the cinema is effectively society saying it doesn't want a Christian about the place.

If there is any discrimination then its against faith/spiritualism and not christianity.

If someone stood outside Belfast City hall with a megaphone proclaiming the fallacies of the bible, the logic gaps in christianity, the fact deficit in the bible and the catastrophic consequences that have flown from christianity and the bible would they be moved on? Are christians that interested in freedom of speech and expression?

Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:43:17 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:06:10 PM
Tony - if you faith compelled you to do something that you knew was illegal - what would you do?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 20, 2015, 06:26:41 PM
Yes.My beliefs supercede often misguided man made laws.

Tony is backing the jihadists and their Paris and Beirut exploits presumably.

Personally I think people with crazy beliefs need to challenged

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 10:52:22 PM
I most certainly do not back jihadists,but as was the case with Ashers,I would prioritise my Christian beliefs (which are mainstream and not fundamentalist) over man made laws when there is a conflict between the two

So is ok or you to override the law with your faith but not for others??

Is it only ok if people override the law to reflect your judgements but not their own??

A recipe for total f**king anarchy

Is it at all possible to keep this relevant to the subject? How many more posts will there be before someone mentions "you know what?"

Smel,most certainly people should be able to air their anti religious views in public.Doesnt Humanist Ireland already do this?

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:06:48 PM
Is it at all possible to keep this relevant to the subject? How many more posts will there be before someone mentions "you know what?"

Exactly. Effin Hugo Duncan.

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 10:42:22 PM
Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

How is it disciminatory?

Well I am going to create shock waves around the internet and say I agree with Fearon. The Church of England's money is as good as anyones and they should be allowed to advertise. The fecking brit army have adds on all the time and their "job" is to shoot and bomb people. Now that said I would probably take the opportunity to go for a piss when it comes on but I see no justification for refusing to show it.

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 10:42:22 PM
Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

How is it disciminatory?

Because the add has been banned.

Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:56:42 PM

If there is any discrimination then its against faith/spiritualism and not christianity.

Isnt Christianity faith/spiritualism?

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:20:32 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 10:42:22 PM
Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

How is it disciminatory?

Because the add has been banned.

And?

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:42:16 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:20:32 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 10:42:22 PM
Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

How is it disciminatory?

Because the add has been banned.

And?

If you ban one ad and continue to show others that's discriminatory.

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 09:58:58 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 09:41:13 PM

Quote from: From the Bunker on November 23, 2015, 09:21:58 PM
An article on this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/cinema-chains-ban-advert-featuring-lords-prayer)


The Ad.

http://www.justpray.uk/ (http://www.justpray.uk/)

Seems pretty straightforward that these companies want to stay the hell away from religious issues.

If they chose to air Jewish or Muslim prayer ads or Richard Dawkins telling the audience they were all wishful thinking morons for believing in prayer, but refused the CofE ad, then Tony's whining about persecution might be warranted. If its a case of "f**k the lot of yez", I don't see any cause for complaint. And certainly no evidence of persecution.

Which is not to say that people should not be a little  more thick skinned and tolerant of diversity!

As an atheist I would be too bothered by such an ad.

But then again I grew up in Ireland with religion  being shoved down my gob at every turn!

Does RTE still broadcast the Angelus?

I've no problem with the Angelus. Nor should anyone in the british isles. If people want this place to become a Muslim country then the cinema chain are going the right way about it.

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

Quote from: Rossfan on November 23, 2015, 11:46:31 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:42:16 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:20:32 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 10:42:22 PM
Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

How is it disciminatory?

Because the add has been banned.

And?

If you ban one ad and continue to show others that's discriminatory.

I'm sorry, "others" as in other ads or other religious ads?

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:42:16 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:20:32 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 10:42:22 PM
Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

How is it disciminatory?

Because the add has been banned.

And?

...and the cinema (if its like any other) shows ads promoting a whole range of other ideas and products

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:46:50 PM

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

I've no problem with either. I've seen men holding hands. It hasn't turned me. I've seen an Orange parade. It hasn't turned me. I've watched the odd show about Dawkins, but  it hasn't turned me. So I would not complain about other religions advertising.

The banning of the advert is the thin end of the wedge. Eventually the absence of christian principles will create a vacuum into which Sharii law will step in. And once in power, the Taliban wont bow to the pathetic whims of atheists.

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:52:56 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:42:16 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:20:32 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 10:42:22 PM
Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

How is it disciminatory?

Because the add has been banned.

And?

...and the cinema (if its like any other) shows ads promoting a whole range of other ideas and products

By that standard the porn industry must be up in arms as well so! ;D

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 11:59:45 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:46:50 PM

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

I've no problem with either. I've seen men holding hands. It hasn't turned me. I've seen an Orange parade. It hasn't turned me. I've watched the odd show about Dawkins, but  it hasn't turned me. So I would not complain about other religions advertising.

The banning of the advert is the thin end of the wedge. Eventually the absence of christian principles will create a vacuum into which Sharii law will step in. And once in power, the Taliban wont bow to the pathetic whims of atheists.

So people will swap a fairly mild Anglican consensus with religion kept private for the f**king Taliban? ;D

Jesus, some serious logic flaws here. "It's discriminatory because they won't show an ad featuring a Christian prayer but will show you one trying to flog you a new car".

Quote from: J70 on November 24, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 11:59:45 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:46:50 PM

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

I've no problem with either. I've seen men holding hands. It hasn't turned me. I've seen an Orange parade. It hasn't turned me. I've watched the odd show about Dawkins, but  it hasn't turned me. So I would not complain about other religions advertising.

The banning of the advert is the thin end of the wedge. Eventually the absence of christian principles will create a vacuum into which Sharii law will step in. And once in power, the Taliban wont bow to the pathetic whims of atheists.

So people will swap a fairly mild Anglican consensus with religion kept private for the f**king Taliban? ;D

It wont happen overnight. And neither did the Taliban and ISIS.

Quote from: J70 on November 24, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 11:59:45 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:46:50 PM

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

I've no problem with either. I've seen men holding hands. It hasn't turned me. I've seen an Orange parade. It hasn't turned me. I've watched the odd show about Dawkins, but  it hasn't turned me. So I would not complain about other religions advertising.

The banning of the advert is the thin end of the wedge. Eventually the absence of christian principles will create a vacuum into which Sharii law will step in. And once in power, the Taliban wont bow to the pathetic whims of atheists.

So people will swap a fairly mild Anglican consensus with religion kept private for the f**king Taliban? ;D

I think Religion will disappear in the next 2/300 years. Its getting diluted more and more as each generation passes.

Having said that the general idea of treating others as you wish to be treated will prevail and the world will still be just fine... Peace and love everyone!!

Quote from: Orior on November 24, 2015, 12:11:41 AM

Quote from: J70 on November 24, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 11:59:45 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:46:50 PM

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

I've no problem with either. I've seen men holding hands. It hasn't turned me. I've seen an Orange parade. It hasn't turned me. I've watched the odd show about Dawkins, but  it hasn't turned me. So I would not complain about other religions advertising.

The banning of the advert is the thin end of the wedge. Eventually the absence of christian principles will create a vacuum into which Sharii law will step in. And once in power, the Taliban wont bow to the pathetic whims of atheists.

So people will swap a fairly mild Anglican consensus with religion kept private for the f**king Taliban? ;D

It wont happen overnight. And neither did the Taliban and ISIS.

I think the circumstances that gave rise to ISIS and the Taliban were just a little different to the typical modern, secular western society.

Quote from: gallsman on November 24, 2015, 12:09:07 AM
Jesus, some serious logic flaws here. "It's discriminatory because they won't show an ad featuring a Christian prayer but will show you one trying to flog you a new car".

Yep, the only way this could be demonstrated to be discriminatory would be if these cinemas were showing prayer commercials for other religions while rejecting the Anglican one. Christ, we should be all familiar with sectarian practises at this stage!

Lets keep it on point lads...

J70... I think you are well aware your analogy is false. Prehaps we could discuss the point and not have us wading through the fallacies of an irrelevant analogy.

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 24, 2015, 12:22:46 AM
Lets keep it on point lads...

J70... I think you are well aware your analogy is false. Prehaps we could discuss the point and not have us wading through the fallacies of an irrelevant analogy.

No, I'm not seeing the falsity Joe.

You will have to explain it.

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 10:18:01 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2015, 10:08:52 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 08:29:55 PM
Sheer bigoted intolerance against Christians,now the most persecuted group in society in terms of denial of rights

I'd have no particular problem with the advert, but there's no persecution here and I can't see any rights being denied.

Correct. An atheist spokesperson on the news said that this could open the door for other religions to advertise. And that was the height of his argument! I wouldn't mind watching an advert for Druids, as long as it included naked dancing ladies.

If that was his argument, then its not an argument at all, unless a ban exists on religious advertising, which I seriously doubt.

They should be free to buy advertising space like anyone else. And those selling such space should be free to accept and refuse their custom, as long as they're not singling out certain faiths for no good reason.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 10:52:22 PM
I most certainly do not back jihadists,but as was the case with Ashers,I would prioritise my Christian beliefs (which are mainstream and not fundamentalist) over man made laws when there is a conflict between the two

The Bible was written by man.

Surely you are not arguing against that?

As for mainstream, does a comprehensive referendum result not relegate your views to the fringes?

Smelmoth wise up.I cannot think of too many circumstances where the law of the land contradicts religious belief,bar something like the circumstances of Ashers case.That is not anarchy.

The Catholic Church needs "a reality check" in the wake of the same-sex marriage referendum and needs to ask if it has drifted away from young people, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said.
"I think really that the church needs to do a reality check, a reality check right across the board, to look at the things it's doing well, to look at the areas where we really have to start and say, 'Look, have we drifted away completely from young people?' " he told RTÉ News.
He said the referendum result was "an overwhelming vote in one direction" and he appreciated how gay men and lesbian women felt after the endorsement of same-sex marriage - "that they feel this is something which is enriching the way they live", he said.
"I think it's a social revolution... It's a social revolution that didn't begin today," he said. "It's a social revolution that's been going on, and perhaps in the church people have not been as clear in understanding what that involved.
"It's very clear that if this referendum is an affirmation of the views of young people, then the church has a huge task in front of it to find the language to be able to talk to and to get its message across to young people, not just on this issue, but in general."
Dr Martin said it was important that the church must not move into denial of the realities. "We won't begin again with a sense of renewal by simply denying," he said.
When he met Pope Benedict after he became archbishop, the pope asked him where were the points of contact between the Catholic Church and the places where the future of Irish culture was being formed, he said.
"And that's a question the church has to ask itself here in Ireland," Dr Martin said.
'Big challenge'
"Most of these young people who voted Yes are products of our Catholic schools for 12 years," he said. "There's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the church...We need to sit down and say 'are we reaching out at all to young people?' ... We're becoming a church of the like-minded, and a sort of a safe space for the like-minded," he said.
"That doesn't mean that we renounce our teaching on fundamental values on marriage and the family. Nor does it mean that we dig into the trenches.
"We need to find...a new language which is fundamentally ours, that speaks to, is understood and becomes appreciated by others."
Dr Martin added that "we tend to think in black and white but most of us live in the area of grey, and if the church has a harsh teaching, it seems to be condemning those who are not in line with it.
"But all of us live in the grey area. All of us fail. All of us are intolerant. All of us make mistakes. All of us sin and all of us pick ourselves up again with the help of that institution which should be there to do that.
"The church's teaching, if it isn't expressed in terms of love - then it's got it wrong," he said.

Quote from: finbar o tool on November 24, 2015, 09:18:55 AM
The Catholic Church needs "a reality check" in the wake of the same-sex marriage referendum and needs to ask if it has drifted away from young people, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said.
"I think really that the church needs to do a reality check, a reality check right across the board, to look at the things it's doing well, to look at the areas where we really have to start and say, 'Look, have we drifted away completely from young people?' " he told RTÉ News.
He said the referendum result was "an overwhelming vote in one direction" and he appreciated how gay men and lesbian women felt after the endorsement of same-sex marriage - "that they feel this is something which is enriching the way they live", he said.
"I think it's a social revolution... It's a social revolution that didn't begin today," he said. "It's a social revolution that's been going on, and perhaps in the church people have not been as clear in understanding what that involved.
"It's very clear that if this referendum is an affirmation of the views of young people, then the church has a huge task in front of it to find the language to be able to talk to and to get its message across to young people, not just on this issue, but in general."
Dr Martin said it was important that the church must not move into denial of the realities. "We won't begin again with a sense of renewal by simply denying," he said.
When he met Pope Benedict after he became archbishop, the pope asked him where were the points of contact between the Catholic Church and the places where the future of Irish culture was being formed, he said.
"And that's a question the church has to ask itself here in Ireland," Dr Martin said.
'Big challenge'
"Most of these young people who voted Yes are products of our Catholic schools for 12 years," he said. "There's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the church...We need to sit down and say 'are we reaching out at all to young people?' ... We're becoming a church of the like-minded, and a sort of a safe space for the like-minded," he said.
"That doesn't mean that we renounce our teaching on fundamental values on marriage and the family. Nor does it mean that we dig into the trenches.
"We need to find...a new language which is fundamentally ours, that speaks to, is understood and becomes appreciated by others."
Dr Martin added that "we tend to think in black and white but most of us live in the area of grey, and if the church has a harsh teaching, it seems to be condemning those who are not in line with it.
"But all of us live in the grey area. All of us fail. All of us are intolerant. All of us make mistakes. All of us sin and all of us pick ourselves up again with the help of that institution which should be there to do that.
"The church's teaching, if it isn't expressed in terms of love - then it's got it wrong," he said.

Could someone print this up and nail it on Fearon's door?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 08:29:55 PM
Sheer bigoted intolerance against Christians,now the most persecuted group in society in terms of denial of rights

And the loyalists, don't forget them

Two points,

1) I don't think the CoE advert should have been banned, but at the same time the Christians couldn't complain if Dawkins and other atheists had an ad on display or even the Wahhabi strain of Islam decided to throw up an ad in a Cinema.

2) Just how desperate are the CoE to get bums back on pews when their resorting to mainstream advertising?

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 24, 2015, 12:22:46 AM
Lets keep it on point lads...

J70... I think you are well aware your analogy is false. Prehaps we could discuss the point and not have us wading through the fallacies of an irrelevant analogy.

You called it discriminatory, a few of us reacted to that. We're very much on point and awaiting an explanation of how it is so.

In the broadest sense it is discriminatory, in that it treats religious and political advertising as different from non-religious and political advertising. But that's not really the issue. The important point is whether Cinemas are justified in doing so.

Personally i think they are justified. Religious types don't like the 'thin edge of the wedge' argument as it brackets them with extremists like those responsible for the Paris attacks. But it seems to me that it is the same vacation of moral reasoning in preference for blindly following doctrine, which leads those to kill in the name of religion and which also leads others to discriminate against gays, or propagate the spread of preventable diseases by condemning contraception ("my religion forbids it").

The cinema/advertising chain has claimed, whether correctly or not, (as a few subsequent actions look dubious), that it has a clear policy of not allowing any political or religious advertising. If anything, it's the opposite of discrimination as they're treating this group like they would any other religious group.

I'm still waiting to hear what rights Tony thinks have been trampled on.

Quote from: gallsman on November 24, 2015, 01:59:46 PM
The cinema/advertising chain has claimed, whether correctly or not, (as a few subsequent actions look dubious), that it has a clear policy of not allowing any political or religious advertising. If anything, it's the opposite of discrimination as they're treating this group like they would any other religious group.

I'm still waiting to hear what rights Tony thinks have been trampled on.

I think there is some confusion here between 2 levels of discrimination which is being exploited (or missed) by those with a religious agenda.

The particular act of banning this advert is not discriminatory vis-a-vis the wider policy of a ban on all religious and political advertising (with the proviso of course that that policy is fairly applied). The broad policy on the other hand is discriminatory - it treats religious and political adverts differently from other adverts. This discrimination, imo, is justified, whereas a ban on this particular advert without a wider ban on all religious/political adverts would not have been justified.

The right of every Christian not to be treated like a sub human,because our faith is deemed offensive(??).Diarmuid Martin is wrong if he believes God's love and compassion is unconditional,though I don't see that he is advocating gay marriage,but the emphasis on God's love is dangerous without the qualification that this is strictly conditional upon turning away from sin.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 05:54:19 PM
The right of every Christian not to be treated like a sub human,because our faith is deemed offensive(??).Diarmuid Martin is wrong if he believes God's love and compassion is unconditional,though I don't see that he is advocating gay marriage,but the emphasis on God's love is dangerous without the qualification that this is strictly conditional upon turning away from sin.

Do you still sin Tony??

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 05:54:19 PM
The right of every Christian not to be treated like a sub human,because our faith is deemed offensive(??).

How are you treated as sub human for being a Christian? Examples, rather than soundbites.

Fearon, just admit you're gay and let that be an end to it !!

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 05:54:19 PM
The right of every Christian not to be treated like a sub human,because our faith is deemed offensive(??).Diarmuid Martin is wrong if he believes God's love and compassion is unconditional,though I don't see that he is advocating gay marriage,but the emphasis on God's love is dangerous without the qualification that this is strictly conditional upon turning away from sin.

Christians are being treated like subhumans?

That is terrible, if true. What's happening?

We are ridiculed (just read this thread), our very faith is taboo (symbols,prayers not allowed in any public place) and opposed at every end.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
We are ridiculed (just read this thread), our very faith is taboo (symbols,prayers not allowed in any public place) and opposed at every end.

Don't be ridiculous. You still maintain a dominant position as the primary religion in both Ireland and Britain. There are churches, grottos and crosses on every corner of the land. You are free to go to mass every day and multiple times a day if you wish. No one is arresting you and imprisoning you for your faith. The national broadcaster still does the Angelus and mass and the rest.

What about my "plight" as an atheist Tony? I don't see any monuments or national broadcaster honouring my position that there is no god? No recognition whatsoever that mine is a valid viewpoint.

I realize a lot of you are upset at your diminishing position of dominance as society becomes more secular and alternate views and faiths attain equality, but I am honestly shocked, assuming you are genuine, that a catholic from Armagh could equate what you are seeing with being treated as a subhuman!

And where has the christian faith been ridiculed on this thread? Does calling bullshit on your false victimhood equate to ridicule of your faith?

Atheism and theophobia is now predominant in all parts of the British and Irish isles with the notable exception perhaps of the North East of Ireland.The Christian Faith is being marginalised and those who adhere to it are treated as weirdos.The analogy would be in a work environment,constructive dismissal

Basically Id concur with Clov's deductive reasoning about how its discriminatory, but disagree with his conclusion about it being justified.
I believe it is unjustified discrimination. If they want to discriminate against religious and political ads fair enough, but my understanding of where the line is drawn would be the promoting of specific political parties or religions. This ad wasn't promoting the religion per se it was promoting a particular aspect of religion.

Quote from: J70 on November 24, 2015, 12:23:45 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 24, 2015, 12:22:46 AM
Lets keep it on point lads...

J70... I think you are well aware your analogy is false. Prehaps we could discuss the point and not have us wading through the fallacies of an irrelevant analogy.

No, I'm not seeing the falsity Joe.

You will have to explain it.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 11:00:20 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:43:17 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 20, 2015, 05:06:10 PM
Tony - if you faith compelled you to do something that you knew was illegal - what would you do?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 20, 2015, 06:26:41 PM
Yes.My beliefs supercede often misguided man made laws.

Tony is backing the jihadists and their Paris and Beirut exploits presumably.

Personally I think people with crazy beliefs need to challenged

Quote from: T Fearon on November 23, 2015, 10:52:22 PM
I most certainly do not back jihadists,but as was the case with Ashers,I would prioritise my Christian beliefs (which are mainstream and not fundamentalist) over man made laws when there is a conflict between the two

So is ok or you to override the law with your faith but not for others??

Is it only ok if people override the law to reflect your judgements but not their own??

A recipe for total f**king anarchy

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 06:56:31 AM
Smelmoth wise up.I cannot think of too many circumstances where the law of the land contradicts religious belief,bar something like the circumstances of Ashers case.That is not anarchy.

You argue that you (personally) can override the law to maintain the rules of their chosen faith but others cannot. You cannot see the recipe for anarchy that that presents?

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:41:54 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:56:42 PM

If there is any discrimination then its against faith/spiritualism and not christianity.

Isnt Christianity faith/spiritualism?

Christianity is spiritualist but does not represent the totallity of spiritualism. The policy of the cinema company was to ban political and religious ads - not to ban christian adds per se

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:20:32 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 10:42:22 PM
Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

How is it disciminatory?

Because the add has been banned.

Are all prohibitions discriminatory (in the legal sense)??

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 05:54:19 PM
The right of every Christian not to be treated like a sub human,because our faith is deemed offensive(??)

I shall direct my ire towards those treating christians as sub human. Now Tony tell me who these people are and how they are treating humans as sub humans?

Quote from: smelmoth on November 24, 2015, 09:56:53 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:41:54 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:56:42 PM

If there is any discrimination then its against faith/spiritualism and not christianity.

Isnt Christianity faith/spiritualism?

Christianity is spiritualist but does not represent the totallity of spiritualism. The policy of the cinema company was to ban political and religious ads - not to ban christian adds per se

So if its part of spirituality and its being discriminated against then would logical deduction not mean that its being discriminated against?

Quote from: smelmoth on November 24, 2015, 09:58:18 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:20:32 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:18:20 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 10:42:22 PM
Tony, loose the drama and keep it on point.

Its discriminatory and borderline offensive but its not the same as saying that they dont want Christians around.

How is it disciminatory?

Because the add has been banned.

Are all prohibitions discriminatory (in the legal sense)??

I don't know about legally... ye better get Joe Brolly on this one

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
We are ridiculed (just read this thread),

You have no right to "not be ridiculed". Nor do I. Nor does anybodey else. Equality.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
our very faith is taboo

Given all the many, many threads you have started, the existence of daily religious services, the broadcasting of masses and the angelus and the public profile given to religious leaders the argument that your faith is taboo has all the same factual basis as me caliming that my blue car is green. Plain and simple bollocks.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
(symbols,prayers not allowed in any public place)

Indeed there are no religious symbols in public places in our society. Delusional

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
and opposed at every end.

Yes Tony, nobody should challenge your views or be allowed to.

Your arguments are pure fantasy of the worst kind with no grounding in fact or logic

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 24, 2015, 10:04:56 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 24, 2015, 09:56:53 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:41:54 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:56:42 PM

If there is any discrimination then its against faith/spiritualism and not christianity.

Isnt Christianity faith/spiritualism?

Christianity is spiritualist but does not represent the totallity of spiritualism. The policy of the cinema company was to ban political and religious ads - not to ban christian adds per se

So if its part of spirituality and its being discriminated against then would logical deduction not mean that its being discriminated against?

You have made that point well. For clarity maybe we should list all the individual spiritualist humans that are possibly being discriminated against?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
We are ridiculed (just read this thread), our very faith is taboo (symbols,prayers not allowed in any public place) and opposed at every end.

Why should your beliefs, or anyone's, be above ridicule? You want privilege, not equality.

Quote from: Clov on November 24, 2015, 02:10:51 PM

Quote from: gallsman on November 24, 2015, 01:59:46 PM
The cinema/advertising chain has claimed, whether correctly or not, (as a few subsequent actions look dubious), that it has a clear policy of not allowing any political or religious advertising. If anything, it's the opposite of discrimination as they're treating this group like they would any other religious group.

I'm still waiting to hear what rights Tony thinks have been trampled on.

I think there is some confusion here between 2 levels of discrimination which is being exploited (or missed) by those with a religious agenda.

The particular act of banning this advert is not discriminatory vis-a-vis the wider policy of a ban on all religious and political advertising (with the proviso of course that that policy is fairly applied). The broad policy on the other hand is discriminatory - it treats religious and political adverts differently from other adverts. This discrimination, imo, is justified, whereas a ban on this particular advert without a wider ban on all religious/political adverts would not have been justified.

I don't think we need to look any further than the advertising standards legislation for the justification of a ban on religious advertising. I think the regulations require that any claim made for the efficacy of the product or service advertised has to be supported by evidence. It's as unacceptable in terms of legal advertising to say prayer works as it would be to say cigarettes will cure asthma.

Quote from: Maguire01 on November 24, 2015, 10:37:15 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 24, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
We are ridiculed (just read this thread), our very faith is taboo (symbols,prayers not allowed in any public place) and opposed at every end.

Why should your beliefs, or anyone's, be above ridicule? You want privilege, not equality.

Or, in other words (as someone sensible said) he seems to be confusing not having his own way with a war on his religion.

Quote from: Hardy on November 24, 2015, 11:34:27 PM

Quote from: Clov on November 24, 2015, 02:10:51 PM

Quote from: gallsman on November 24, 2015, 01:59:46 PM
The cinema/advertising chain has claimed, whether correctly or not, (as a few subsequent actions look dubious), that it has a clear policy of not allowing any political or religious advertising. If anything, it's the opposite of discrimination as they're treating this group like they would any other religious group.

I'm still waiting to hear what rights Tony thinks have been trampled on.

I think there is some confusion here between 2 levels of discrimination which is being exploited (or missed) by those with a religious agenda.

The particular act of banning this advert is not discriminatory vis-a-vis the wider policy of a ban on all religious and political advertising (with the proviso of course that that policy is fairly applied). The broad policy on the other hand is discriminatory - it treats religious and political adverts differently from other adverts. This discrimination, imo, is justified, whereas a ban on this particular advert without a wider ban on all religious/political adverts would not have been justified.

I don't think we need to look any further than the advertising standards legislation for the justification of a ban on religious advertising. I think the regulations require that any claim made for the efficacy of the product or service advertised has to be supported by evidence. It's as unacceptable in terms of legal advertising to say prayer works as it would be to say cigarettes will cure asthma.

Brilliant.

Homeopathy also springs to mind.

Quote from: screenexile on November 24, 2015, 12:15:43 AM

Quote from: J70 on November 24, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 11:59:45 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:46:50 PM

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

I've no problem with either. I've seen men holding hands. It hasn't turned me. I've seen an Orange parade. It hasn't turned me. I've watched the odd show about Dawkins, but  it hasn't turned me. So I would not complain about other religions advertising.

The banning of the advert is the thin end of the wedge. Eventually the absence of christian principles will create a vacuum into which Sharii law will step in. And once in power, the Taliban wont bow to the pathetic whims of atheists.

So people will swap a fairly mild Anglican consensus with religion kept private for the f**king Taliban? ;D

I think Religion will disappear in the next 2/300 years. Its getting diluted more and more as each generation passes.

Having said that the general idea of treating others as you wish to be treated will prevail and the world will still be just fine... Peace and love everyone!!

That's the most depressing thought I've contemplated today.

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 24, 2015, 08:42:16 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 24, 2015, 12:23:45 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 24, 2015, 12:22:46 AM
Lets keep it on point lads...

J70... I think you are well aware your analogy is false. Prehaps we could discuss the point and not have us wading through the fallacies of an irrelevant analogy.

No, I'm not seeing the falsity Joe.

You will have to explain it.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

Not getting anything out of that link, but I think I get the jist of your argument from your other posts.

I just don't have any sympathy for it. Technically, there may be discrimination in that a religious ad is being singled out while car ads are not, but so what? To me, the key is that no one religion is being singled out, therefore equality reigns and Tony's complaints are baseless. I think the cinema chains are underestimating the tolerance of the public, but then all it takes is one or two ultrasensitive busy bodies with too much time on their hands to make a complaint and people are running scared, whether its this or Janet Jackson's nipple being exposed for a split second or whatever. They probably got stung before and just couldn't be arsed dealing with it.

Quote from: smelmoth on November 24, 2015, 10:17:43 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 24, 2015, 10:04:56 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 24, 2015, 09:56:53 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 23, 2015, 11:41:54 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on November 23, 2015, 10:56:42 PM

If there is any discrimination then its against faith/spiritualism and not christianity.

Isnt Christianity faith/spiritualism?

Christianity is spiritualist but does not represent the totallity of spiritualism. The policy of the cinema company was to ban political and religious ads - not to ban christian adds per se

So if its part of spirituality and its being discriminated against then would logical deduction not mean that its being discriminated against?

You have made that point well. For clarity maybe we should list all the individual spiritualist humans that are possibly being discriminated against?

If you want..... Personally while I think the focus on the individual these days is good in some ways its getting out of hand in others, and we need to work together a bit more.

Quote from: Hardy on November 24, 2015, 11:34:27 PM

Quote from: Clov on November 24, 2015, 02:10:51 PM

Quote from: gallsman on November 24, 2015, 01:59:46 PM
The cinema/advertising chain has claimed, whether correctly or not, (as a few subsequent actions look dubious), that it has a clear policy of not allowing any political or religious advertising. If anything, it's the opposite of discrimination as they're treating this group like they would any other religious group.

I'm still waiting to hear what rights Tony thinks have been trampled on.

I think there is some confusion here between 2 levels of discrimination which is being exploited (or missed) by those with a religious agenda.

The particular act of banning this advert is not discriminatory vis-a-vis the wider policy of a ban on all religious and political advertising (with the proviso of course that that policy is fairly applied). The broad policy on the other hand is discriminatory - it treats religious and political adverts differently from other adverts. This discrimination, imo, is justified, whereas a ban on this particular advert without a wider ban on all religious/political adverts would not have been justified.

I don't think we need to look any further than the advertising standards legislation for the justification of a ban on religious advertising. I think the regulations require that any claim made for the efficacy of the product or service advertised has to be supported by evidence. It's as unacceptable in terms of legal advertising to say prayer works as it would be to say cigarettes will cure asthma.

1. Whats the ad selling?
2. What does religion sell?
3. Smoking would likely make asthma worse

Quote from: J70 on November 25, 2015, 12:19:59 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 24, 2015, 08:42:16 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 24, 2015, 12:23:45 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 24, 2015, 12:22:46 AM
Lets keep it on point lads...

J70... I think you are well aware your analogy is false. Prehaps we could discuss the point and not have us wading through the fallacies of an irrelevant analogy.

No, I'm not seeing the falsity Joe.

You will have to explain it.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

Not getting anything out of that link, but I think I get the jist of your argument from your other posts.

I just don't have any sympathy for it. Technically, there may be discrimination in that a religious ad is being singled out while car ads are not, but so what? To me, the key is that no one religion is being singled out, therefore equality reigns and Tony's complaints are baseless. I think the cinema chains are underestimating the tolerance of the public, but then all it takes is one or two ultrasensitive busy bodies with too much time on their hands to make a complaint and people are running scared, whether its this or Janet Jackson's nipple being exposed for a split second or whatever. They probably got stung before and just couldn't be arsed dealing with it.

Stop being disingenuous J70 ye know fine well I was bein a smart arse

Anyway fair enough I've laid out my case, you get my point but you dont agree, we will leave it at that, cos the only thing left is the customary character assassination.

I'll leave that till the summer when more important things are happening

Quote from: Hardy on November 24, 2015, 11:37:28 PM

Quote from: screenexile on November 24, 2015, 12:15:43 AM

Quote from: J70 on November 24, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

Quote from: Orior on November 23, 2015, 11:59:45 PM

Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2015, 11:46:50 PM

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

I've no problem with either. I've seen men holding hands. It hasn't turned me. I've seen an Orange parade. It hasn't turned me. I've watched the odd show about Dawkins, but  it hasn't turned me. So I would not complain about other religions advertising.

The banning of the advert is the thin end of the wedge. Eventually the absence of christian principles will create a vacuum into which Sharii law will step in. And once in power, the Taliban wont bow to the pathetic whims of atheists.

So people will swap a fairly mild Anglican consensus with religion kept private for the f**king Taliban? ;D

I think Religion will disappear in the next 2/300 years. Its getting diluted more and more as each generation passes.

Having said that the general idea of treating others as you wish to be treated will prevail and the world will still be just fine... Peace and love everyone!!

That's the most depressing thought I've contemplated today.

Dont worry Hardy its only what one man thinks, and if it cheers you up... I think it will still be alive and kicking.

The ad is not "selling" religion,just reminding or drawing people's attention to arguably the best known Christian prayer.Explain to me why refusing to ice a message on a wedding cake in support of gay marriage is legally discriminatory,while refusing to simply broadcast a well known Christian prayer is not?

I'm sorry but the conspicuous attempts to remove all religion from everyday life, is a form of persecution and a blatant attempt to marginalise (while the buzzwords for everything else are equality and inclusivity) it's practitioners

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 05:58:23 AM
The ad is not "selling" religion,just reminding or drawing people's attention to arguably the best known Christian prayer.Explain to me why refusing to ice a message on a wedding cake in support of gay marriage is legally discriminatory,while refusing to simply broadcast a well known Christian prayer is not?

I'm sorry but the conspicuous attempts to remove all religion from everyday life, is a form of persecution and a blatant attempt to marginalise (while the buzzwords for everything else are equality and inclusivity) it's practitioners

J. H. Christ Tony!  >:(

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 05:58:23 AM
The ad is not "selling" religion,just reminding or drawing people's attention to arguably the best known Christian prayer.Explain to me why refusing to ice a message on a wedding cake in support of gay marriage is legally discriminatory,while refusing to simply broadcast a well known Christian prayer is not?

I'm sorry but the conspicuous attempts to remove all religion from everyday life, is a form of persecution and a blatant attempt to marginalise (while the buzzwords for everything else are equality and inclusivity) it's practitioners

But as long as you know who your god is and his prayer why do you feel the need for ads in cinemas?? In fact you don't need to worship him in church or for that matter pay money every Sunday towards him.... Live your christian values without the trappings..... Think what the Vatican could do with their wealth in helping world poverty if they did like Jesus and gave their money to the poor

Quote from: Bingo on November 23, 2015, 10:26:59 PM
Why isn't there one thread on religion for this poster to put all his religious themed threads into. It always ends up in the same argument.

Better still Tony should have a thread all to himself so that we can dip in and out when we want to see his rants and half truths. Oh and downright bigoted insults.

The ad has been banned on the grounds that it may have caused offence? That being the case,ads for alcohol potentially offend teetotallers

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 09:28:13 PM
The ad has been banned on the grounds that it may have caused offence? That being the case,ads for alcohol potentially offend teetotallers

Alcohol offers temporary innebriation, which has been observed to be true.

Religion offers eternal salvation, which hasn't.

How do you know it doesn't? Also does the ad even mention salvation or is it just a gentle reminder of arguably the best known of all Christian prayers,in which case it, by any reasonable criteria,is totally harmless?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 11:16:05 PM
How do you know it doesn't? Also does the ad even mention salvation or is it just a gentle reminder of arguably the best known of all Christian prayers,in which case it, by any reasonable criteria,is totally harmless?

Read it again.

I said it hasn't been observed to be true.

'Thy Kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven;


Is there any proof anywhere of these claims?

Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 11:33:28 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 11:16:05 PM
How do you know it doesn't? Also does the ad even mention salvation or is it just a gentle reminder of arguably the best known of all Christian prayers,in which case it, by any reasonable criteria,is totally harmless?

Read it again.

I said it hasn't been observed to be true.

'Thy Kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven;


Is there any proof anywhere of these claims?

By the same token Muppet it hasn't been observed not to be true.... and its not physics we are dealing with here so observing it is outta the question. Its within a different realm to the physical.
Religion offers faith in eternal salvation, nothing observable, faith.

Regarding your quote from the Lord Prayer those are not declarations or even a resolutions from the speaker, its a request from the speaker to God.

Could I suggest you re-examine your faith (earnestly) it seems you may have misunderstood much of it.

Omaghjoe,you are wasting your time appealing for impartiality from theophobes like Muppet.

The fact is an ad about any other subject/product under the sun (apart from pornography and extreme violence) would be broadcast without any fuss in the cinema,which makes this ban an obvious case of shameful discrimination

Quote from: T Fearon on November 26, 2015, 07:06:48 AM
Omaghjoe,you are wasting your time appealing for impartiality from theophobes like Muppet.

The fact is an ad about any other subject/product under the sun (apart from pornography and extreme violence) would be broadcast without any fuss in the cinema,which makes this ban an obvious case of shameful discrimination

I may well be wasting my time however I set my case out about the discrimination so if people still think its not thats fine its only an opinion and unlikely to change anything.

Anyway We are all God's children Tony and isn't part of our mission to spread the word of Jesus to everyone?

I dont want to cause offence to people or get people's backs up or anything else, I would just like them to have the opportunity to enjoy faith in their lives.

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 26, 2015, 07:26:20 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 26, 2015, 07:06:48 AM
Omaghjoe,you are wasting your time appealing for impartiality from theophobes like Muppet.

The fact is an ad about any other subject/product under the sun (apart from pornography and extreme violence) would be broadcast without any fuss in the cinema,which makes this ban an obvious case of shameful discrimination

I may well be wasting my time however I set my case out about the discrimination so if people still think its not thats fine its only an opinion and unlikely to change anything.

Anyway We are all God's children Tony and isn't part of our mission to spread the word of Jesus to everyone?

I dont want to cause offence to people or get people's backs up or anything else, I would just like them to have the opportunity to enjoy faith in their lives.

Its it ok not to have faith but still be a good person with fantastic morales and be a role model for their family??

Your faith says you are right, above everyone else.... What if you are wrong and have been following the wrong faith?? 

Live your lives but let others live theirs... If there is a god of sorts then he'll hardly be discriminating, he'll hardly banish you for living a good life ....

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 26, 2015, 08:08:08 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 26, 2015, 07:26:20 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 26, 2015, 07:06:48 AM
Omaghjoe,you are wasting your time appealing for impartiality from theophobes like Muppet.

The fact is an ad about any other subject/product under the sun (apart from pornography and extreme violence) would be broadcast without any fuss in the cinema,which makes this ban an obvious case of shameful discrimination

I may well be wasting my time however I set my case out about the discrimination so if people still think its not thats fine its only an opinion and unlikely to change anything.

Anyway We are all God's children Tony and isn't part of our mission to spread the word of Jesus to everyone?

I dont want to cause offence to people or get people's backs up or anything else, I would just like them to have the opportunity to enjoy faith in their lives.

Its it ok not to have faith but still be a good person with fantastic morales and be a role model for their family??

Absolutely for me at least (but Im not God!), although they'd be missing out on a realtionship with God in this life.

Quote
Your faith says you are right, above everyone else

???No it certainly does not.

Quote
.... What if you are wrong and have been following the wrong faith?? 

Trying to answer or even understand such a question from the confines of this life would be impossible and its a question that could be thrown at all theists and atheists. But in a scenario as you describe I would say to him... well it was your call of faith I was answering I was just on the wrong boat....

Quote
Live your lives but let others live theirs

I agree

Quote
... If there is a god of sorts then he'll hardly be discriminating, he'll hardly banish you for living a good life ....

Im not actually God so cant actually answer that but I would say probably not. However its the relationship you have with him in this life will also be a massive benefit to you here.

Was chatting to a couple of Danes yesterday through work and the chat got going about Religion. They said the Church and Christianity is on the decline in Scandinavia nobody really bothers with it anymore, they have a baptism and a funeral in the Church and don't use it for much else.

Given that these countries have the best education/lowest poverty & crime rates/good standards of living would that not show us the way forward?

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 26, 2015, 06:04:56 AM

Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 11:33:28 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 11:16:05 PM
How do you know it doesn't? Also does the ad even mention salvation or is it just a gentle reminder of arguably the best known of all Christian prayers,in which case it, by any reasonable criteria,is totally harmless?

Read it again.

I said it hasn't been observed to be true.

'Thy Kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven;


Is there any proof anywhere of these claims?

By the same token Muppet it hasn't been observed not to be true.... and its not physics we are dealing with here so observing it is outta the question. Its within a different realm to the physical.
Religion offers faith in eternal salvation, nothing observable, faith.

Regarding your quote from the Lord Prayer those are not declarations or even a resolutions from the speaker, its a request from the speaker to God.

Could I suggest you re-examine your faith (earnestly) it seems you may have misunderstood much of it.

The comment regarding observation relates to proof. That doesn't just apply to physics. It applies to everything.

As for the prayer being a request, I don't see it that way. It reads as statements of fact. Unsupported facts.

The prayer names God and states as I quoted 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven'. It may be correct, but no one has ever proven any of it. Where in the observed Universe is 'Heaven'?

You state religion offers eternal salvation. As Hardy perfectly pointed out, adverts are required to be able to support any claims they make.

Having 'Faith' is not a valid argument. Which faith should I have faith in? What proof is there that one or any of them is valid? Why does faith seem to keep changing over the centuries? Why was so much of it wrong? Faith sentenced Galileo to house arrest for his last years for daring to suggest that the earth went around the sun. Fatih was wrong while observation was right. It took faith 350 years to apologise for that.

If there is a God, and there may well be, fatih as we know it seems to have nothing to do with Him.

Just arrived home there and my letterbox contained a calendar for 2016 containing some of the six counties most iconic sights with a different bible passage printed on each of the twelve months.There was also some tracts,all from a Gospel Hall in Newry.Is this legal?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 26, 2015, 05:38:56 PM
Just arrived home there and my letterbox contained a calendar for 2016 containing some of the six counties most iconic sights with a different bible passage printed on each of the twelve months.There was also some tracts,all from a Gospel Hall in Newry.Is this legal?

If you are participant, member or contributor, then of course not.

Quote from: muppet on November 26, 2015, 06:15:14 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 26, 2015, 05:38:56 PM
Just arrived home there and my letterbox contained a calendar for 2016 containing some of the six counties most iconic sights with a different bible passage printed on each of the twelve months.There was also some tracts,all from a Gospel Hall in Newry.Is this legal?

If you are participant, member or contributor, then of course not.

No, sue them

Quote from: T Fearon on November 26, 2015, 05:38:56 PM
Just arrived home there and my letterbox contained a calendar for 2016 containing some of the six counties most iconic sights with a different bible passage printed on each of the twelve months.There was also some tracts,all from a Gospel Hall in Newry.Is this legal?

How can a man who calls the northern statelet 'the six counties' advocate voting for the DUP?

Hypocrisy at its very best, go away and WUM somewhere else, Tony.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 26, 2015, 05:38:56 PM
Just arrived home there and my letterbox contained a calendar for 2016 containing some of the six counties most iconic sights with a different bible passage printed on each of the twelve months.There was also some tracts,all from a Gospel Hall in Newry.Is this legal?

You enter their colouring competition every year, don't you?

Quote from: muppet on November 26, 2015, 10:46:11 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on November 26, 2015, 06:04:56 AM

Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 11:33:28 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 11:16:05 PM
How do you know it doesn't? Also does the ad even mention salvation or is it just a gentle reminder of arguably the best known of all Christian prayers,in which case it, by any reasonable criteria,is totally harmless?

Read it again.

I said it hasn't been observed to be true.

'Thy Kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven;


Is there any proof anywhere of these claims?

By the same token Muppet it hasn't been observed not to be true.... and its not physics we are dealing with here so observing it is outta the question. Its within a different realm to the physical.
Religion offers faith in eternal salvation, nothing observable, faith.

Regarding your quote from the Lord Prayer those are not declarations or even a resolutions from the speaker, its a request from the speaker to God.

Could I suggest you re-examine your faith (earnestly) it seems you may have misunderstood much of it.

The comment regarding observation relates to proof. That doesn't just apply to physics. It applies to everything.

As for the prayer being a request, I don't see it that way. It reads as statements of fact. Unsupported facts.

The prayer names God and states as I quoted 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven'. It may be correct, but no one has ever proven any of it. Where in the observed Universe is 'Heaven'?

You state religion offers eternal salvation. As Hardy perfectly pointed out, adverts are required to be able to support any claims they make.

Having 'Faith' is not a valid argument. Which faith should I have faith in? What proof is there that one or any of them is valid? Why does faith seem to keep changing over the centuries? Why was so much of it wrong? Faith sentenced Galileo to house arrest for his last years for daring to suggest that the earth went around the sun. Fatih was wrong while observation was right. It took faith 350 years to apologise for that.

If there is a God, and there may well be, fatih as we know it seems to have nothing to do with Him.

It is not a statement of facts, the first few lines maybe as an honour to our Lord but from then on its requests. If it was one of the Creeds you might have a point but its not, its a prayer.
If you would like further reading here's a link, its really quite interesting from a spiritual point of view.
http://clarionherald.info/clarion/index.php/special-sections/year-of-renewal-the-mass/1085-explaining-the-seven-petitions-of-the-our-father

Heaven that you talk about is unlikely to be in the observed Universe. If you are looking for heaven through our physical perception of the universe your almost certainly looking in the wrong place.

I stated Religion offers faith in Eternal Salvation, that faith is required from each individual

Besides its a nonsense that ads can only say things that can be measured. I dont know how many times i've seen "World's best this/that/other" Its pure subjective in the same way that faith is, not to mention that Eternal Salvation wasnt even mentioned in the CoE ad

Faith has always been there but you seem to be talking about it in the way its referred to as organised religion. Which although organised religion is an expression of the faith given by God to man, by its very nature is organised by man and thus prone to mans failures. It generally works within the confines of how the physical realm is understood by society at that time. Didnt Galileo get a hard time from other astronomers at that time also?

If you are asking which religion to go for Id say go for the religion that best suits your faith, faith community and tradition. And dont be afraid of not agreeing with it 100%, as part of the congregation you are there to contribute to it which you will be by expressing your difficulties marrying faith in God and your physical perception of the world.

OmaghJoe, with all due respect.....

I was going to post a disection of each line, but I'll only get flamed for arguing to the nth degree.

I'll put it simply. I agree with the analysis of the following:

"Give us this day, our daily bread..."
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us..."
"Lead us not into temptation..."
"But deliver us from evil..."

This is all language we can understand and I agree with the explanations. We are asking for something and we use the words 'give', 'forgive', 'lead' and 'deliver' to articulate these requests, or petitions as the link calls them.

However, the following has equally clear language, using the verb to be, and are statements, not requests or petitions:

"Our Father, who art in heaven..."
"Hallowed be thy name..."
"Thy kingdom come..."
"Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..." -

Are you saying ads have to be evidentially true? Would the dearest after shave make Quasimodo attractive to women,or Armani suits?

Quote from: muppet on November 26, 2015, 09:51:56 PM
OmaghJoe, with all due respect.....

I was going to post a disection of each line, but I'll only get flamed for arguing to the nth degree.

I'll put it simply. I agree with the analysis of the following:

"Give us this day, our daily bread..."
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us..."
"Lead us not into temptation..."
"But deliver us from evil..."

This is all language we can understand and I agree with the explanations. We are asking for something and we use the words 'give', 'forgive', 'lead' and 'deliver' to articulate these requests, or petitions as the link calls them.

However, the following has equally clear language, using the verb to be, and are statements, not requests or petitions:

"Our Father, who art in heaven..."
"Hallowed be thy name..."
"Thy kingdom come..."
"Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..." -

The last three are wishes.
Check the leagan Gaeilge ;)

Quote from: T Fearon on November 26, 2015, 07:06:48 AM
Omaghjoe,you are wasting your time appealing for impartiality from theophobes like Muppet.

The fact is an ad about any other subject/product under the sun (apart from pornography and extreme violence) would be broadcast without any fuss in the cinema,which makes this ban an obvious case of shameful discrimination

At least theophobes like Richard Dawkins is on your side Tony

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/richard-dawkins-says-uk-cinemas-should-screen-the-lords-prayer (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/richard-dawkins-says-uk-cinemas-should-screen-the-lords-prayer)

Quote from: Rossfan on November 26, 2015, 11:56:52 PM

Quote from: muppet on November 26, 2015, 09:51:56 PM
OmaghJoe, with all due respect.....

I was going to post a disection of each line, but I'll only get flamed for arguing to the nth degree.

I'll put it simply. I agree with the analysis of the following:

"Give us this day, our daily bread..."
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us..."
"Lead us not into temptation..."
"But deliver us from evil..."

This is all language we can understand and I agree with the explanations. We are asking for something and we use the words 'give', 'forgive', 'lead' and 'deliver' to articulate these requests, or petitions as the link calls them.

However, the following has equally clear language, using the verb to be, and are statements, not requests or petitions:

"Our Father, who art in heaven..."
"Hallowed be thy name..."
"Thy kingdom come..."
"Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..." -

The last three are wishes.
Check the leagan Gaeilge ;)

Good point. But the Lord's Prayer in English says things differently. If the ad was in Irish it would be fine. Except for the first line, which again has the verb 'to be' and thus is a statement.

@Tony, have you ever heard of false advertising?

Saying 'Our Father, who is in Heaven', might require some proof that he is in Heaven. Or at the very least one of those messages at the end. **

I would enjoy seeing barristers have a go at that one. A bit like the movie 'The man who sued God', which had a great idea, but was crap.

** EG Heaven is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland, terms and conditions may apply. Your soul may be re-possessed if you do not keep up payments.   

Religion and politics divide and therefore should not be allowed any time in a public space for entertainment. There are plenty of opportunities on TV and TV players to advertise these where people at their discretion can opt out. All this nonsense for Tony et al about discrimination is just utter boll*ck*.

Quote from: screenexile on November 26, 2015, 09:29:29 AM
Was chatting to a couple of Danes yesterday through work and the chat got going about Religion. They said the Church and Christianity is on the decline in Scandinavia nobody really bothers with it anymore, they have a baptism and a funeral in the Church and don't use it for much else.

Given that these countries have the best education/lowest poverty & crime rates/good standards of living would that not show us the way forward?

Many people in the world would not have those solely as the criteria for a sucessful society. American for example would likely cite the lack of opportunity (and choice) in those and many European countries

But lets say that they are the main criteria, would you say that irreligion was the major contributing factor

By coincidence I went to see the Lady in the Van in Newry Omniplex tonight.Based on a true story of an eccentric lady who lived for 15 years in various vans in Camden in playwright Alan Bennett's driveway,the film featured a lot of religious imagery (the lady was formerly a nun) including confessional box scenes,Holy Communion and Mass, not to mention the lady's actual ascension to heaven from the graveyard!

Now what's the difference in these things appearing on a cinema screen as part of an actual film,than a short ad featuring the Lord's Prayer before the film starts,on the same screen?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 27, 2015, 11:50:06 PM
By coincidence I went to see the Lady in the Van in Newry Omniplex tonight.Based on a true story of an eccentric lady who lived for 15 years in various vans in Camden in playwright Alan Bennett's driveway,the film featured a lot of religious imagery (the lady was formerly a nun) including confessional box scenes,Holy Communion and Mass, not to mention the lady's actual ascension to heaven from the graveyard!

Now what's the difference in these things appearing on a cinema screen as part of an actual film,than a short ad featuring the Lord's Prayer before the film starts,on the same screen?

Was it promoting Christianity? Plus it was a true story, this Jesus thing is based on myths

Absolutely no difference in my book.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 27, 2015, 11:57:49 PM
Absolutely no difference in my book.

Which book? Genesis or exodus?? Look its all myths and story telling... Wake up

No difference between showing Holy Communion during a film,and a recital of The Lord's Prayer before a film,on the same screen witnessed by the same audience.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34921857
BHA  (British Humanist Association) chief executive Andrew Copson said it had made the case for many decades that the school curriculum on religions should include major non-religious worldviews such as humanism."
The education secretary made "an error of law" in leaving "non-religious world views" out of the new religious studies
Why on earth have such a course under religious studies, quite baffling really. Why not a separate course altogether?

What's a non religious worldview anyway, the world goes round, powered by a herd of elephants?
The ultimate desire in life is....... chocolate.
What other worldviews would the BHA want to include in the school curriculum on religions?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 05:58:23 AM
The ad is not "selling" religion,just reminding or drawing people's attention to arguably the best known Christian prayer.Explain to me why refusing to ice a message on a wedding cake in support of gay marriage is legally discriminatory,while refusing to simply broadcast a well known Christian prayer is not?

I'm sorry but the conspicuous attempts to remove all religion from everyday life, is a form of persecution and a blatant attempt to marginalise (while the buzzwords for everything else are equality and inclusivity) it's practitioners

Another failure to grasp any understanding of the subject matter.

If I refuse to ice cakes (and I have never iced a cake) then nobody can make me. If I set up a business icing cakes but refuse to ice a cake for asian customer or refuse to ice a cake for anyone when the message on the cake proclaims the equality of asians with white europeans then I will rightly be accused of and prosecuted for discrimination. The media storm that goes with it is likely to result in me (and those that defend my actions) being labelled a racist. All very fair and reasonable.

If I make the gable of my icing emporium available for advertising but make a policy of not facilitating political or religious messages then I will only offend those who see historic privilege slipping from their grasp. If I allow only political campaigns for say BNP or religious messages for only the Muslim Brotherhood then I am likely to get myself in some difficulty.

Tony- you really should confirm that you understand these very basic arguments.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 09:28:13 PM
The ad has been banned on the grounds that it may have caused offence?

no

Quote from: muppet on November 25, 2015, 10:08:55 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 09:28:13 PM
The ad has been banned on the grounds that it may have caused offence? That being the case,ads for alcohol potentially offend teetotallers

Alcohol offers temporary innebriation, which has been observed to be true.

Religion offers eternal salvation, which hasn't.

Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2015, 11:16:05 PM
How do you know it doesn't? Also does the ad even mention salvation or is it just a gentle reminder of arguably the best known of all Christian prayers,in which case it, by any reasonable criteria,is totally harmless?

He didn't argue that it didn't offer salvation - just that it has never been proven to offer salvation. Presumably you agree with that or are you going to provide some evidence of salvation?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 26, 2015, 05:38:56 PM
Just arrived home there and my letterbox contained a calendar for 2016 containing some of the six counties most iconic sights with a different bible passage printed on each of the twelve months.There was also some tracts,all from a Gospel Hall in Newry.Is this legal?

Why wouldn't it be?

Well if it's not legal to broadcast the Lord's Prayer on a cinema screen how is it legal to stuff religious tracts into someone's letterbox without their prior consent?

Quote from: T Fearon on November 27, 2015, 11:50:06 PM
By coincidence I went to see the Lady in the Van in Newry Omniplex tonight.Based on a true story of an eccentric lady who lived for 15 years in various vans in Camden in playwright Alan Bennett's driveway,the film featured a lot of religious imagery (the lady was formerly a nun) including confessional box scenes,Holy Communion and Mass, not to mention the lady's actual ascension to heaven from the graveyard!

Now what's the difference in these things appearing on a cinema screen as part of an actual film,than a short ad featuring the Lord's Prayer before the film starts,on the same screen?

You don't understand fiction, poetic licence, entertainment, logic or to quite a staggering degree the english language.

You seem to under some misapprehension that it is either illegal for there to be religious advertising in cinemas or that somewhere out there ther is someone arguing for it to be for there to be religious advertising in cinemas

Quote from: T Fearon on December 01, 2015, 08:56:37 PM
Well if it's not legal to broadcast the Lord's Prayer on a cinema screen how is it legal to stuff religious tracts into someone's letterbox without their prior consent?

Who said it was "not legal to broadcast the Lord's Prayer on a cinema screen"? Seriously where are you getting this stuff from??

Ok maybe legal was the wrong choice of word but if churches can post communications in people's letterboxes without their consent how do cinemas get away with banning it?

Quote from: T Fearon on December 02, 2015, 09:52:10 PM
Ok maybe legal was the wrong choice of word but if churches can post communications in people's letterboxes without their consent how do cinemas get away with banning it?

Property rights. Their screen, they get to decide what gets shown on it.

It's my letterbox attached to my property.No difference

Quote from: T Fearon on December 02, 2015, 10:05:28 PM
It's my letterbox attached to my property.No difference

You are correct, there is no difference. It is your mailbox. If you want to block what comes through your mailbox then you can nail it shut.

Not practical to do that.It just shows you how ridiculous and petty cinemas are, banning material and losing money when the same material can be placed in people's letterboxes for free,and I have heard no one complain

Quote from: T Fearon on December 02, 2015, 10:19:53 PM
Not practical to do that.

Your decision, no one is going to make you do it. That is what is great about doing what you want with your own property.

It is not practical for me to seal my post box and deny receipt of mail.But if religious tracts can be placed in my letterbox without my consent,then they should be able to be shown on a cinema screen without the consent of the audience.No one is being forced to accept what the message says,like any form of advertising

Some of the posts here are worse than infantile

This is going to have the longest thread title in history.

You're right.These threads should be untangled

Actually they should be set on fire

Quote from: T Fearon on December 02, 2015, 09:52:10 PM
Ok maybe legal was the wrong choice of word but if churches can post communications in people's letterboxes without their consent how do cinemas get away with banning it?

Bloody hell you really are plumbing the depths of stupidity (once again)

You can put a sign outside you house asking people to refrain form any or specified items through your letter box. As a citizen of the UK you can register your address to actually make it illegal to post marketing material through your letter box.

Similarly a cinema company can make a decision to decline polictical and religious advertising.

Hopefully that does not stretch your capacity for understanding beyonds its limits