Regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof,it is good to see the DUP and Catholic Church coalescing on issues like the conscience clause,gay marriage.In an increasingly secular world, coalescing over religious issues can only be good and reduce sectarianism,the scourge of the Northern part of this island for centuries
The sad thing is, I think you're serious.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 05:46:06 PM
Regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof,it is good to see the DUP and Catholic Church coalescing on issues like the conscience clause,gay marriage.In an increasingly secular world, coalescing over religious issues can only be good and reduce sectarianism,the scourge of the Northern part of this island for centuries
Tony, you should do stand up.
That is hilarious.
How can organisations poles apart with disastrous consequences for decades,now co operating,be anything but good news?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:02:22 PM
How can organisations poles apart with disastrous consequences for decades,now co operating,be anything but good news?
Because both organisations are full of cnuts........
Tony as someone who has such a deep interest in religion and politics why don't you set up your own party, a Christian Democratic Conservative Party, totally cross community, totally non-sectarian. I think it would go down a treat.
So you'd prefer the old order of neither the twain shall meet? That was a great time wasn't it?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 05:46:06 PM
Regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof,it is good to see the DUP and Catholic Church coalescing on issues like the conscience clause,gay marriage.In an increasingly secular world, coalescing over religious issues can only be good and reduce sectarianism,the scourge of the Northern part of this island for centuries
Similar coalition got George W elected in the United States, that worked out well..........
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:32:26 PM
So you'd prefer the old order of neither the twain shall meet? That was a great time wasn't it?
Unless there's a positive basis for their coming together, then yes, better they don't bother.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 24, 2015, 06:39:39 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:32:26 PM
So you'd prefer the old order of neither the twain shall meet? That was a great time wasn't it?
Unless there's a positive basis for their coming together, then yes, better they don't bother.
I am guessing the basis for this is the evil spectre of gay marriage? Centuries of war and decades of terrorism didn't do it, but gay marriage is a bridge too far it seems.
Quote from: muppet on February 24, 2015, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 24, 2015, 06:39:39 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:32:26 PM
So you'd prefer the old order of neither the twain shall meet? That was a great time wasn't it?
Unless there's a positive basis for their coming together, then yes, better they don't bother.
I am guessing the basis for this is the evil spectre of gay marriage? Centuries of war and decades of terrorism didn't do it, but gay marriage is a bridge too far it seems.
No, just "gayness" in general it would seem. The DUP is putting forward a bill commonly referred to as a "conscience clause", effectively letting people / businesses discriminate on issues of sexual orientation if an issue runs counter to their beliefs.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 24, 2015, 06:57:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 24, 2015, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 24, 2015, 06:39:39 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:32:26 PM
So you'd prefer the old order of neither the twain shall meet? That was a great time wasn't it?
Unless there's a positive basis for their coming together, then yes, better they don't bother.
I am guessing the basis for this is the evil spectre of gay marriage? Centuries of war and decades of terrorism didn't do it, but gay marriage is a bridge too far it seems.
No, just "gayness" in general it would seem. The DUP is putting forward a bill commonly referred to as a "conscience clause", effectively letting people / businesses discriminate on issues of sexual orientation if an issue runs counter to their beliefs.
Hmmm. So if I decide that unionism or religious persuasion or whatever runs contrary to my beliefs, I can discriminate?
Quote from: muppet on February 24, 2015, 06:59:56 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 24, 2015, 06:57:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 24, 2015, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 24, 2015, 06:39:39 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:32:26 PM
So you'd prefer the old order of neither the twain shall meet? That was a great time wasn't it?
Unless there's a positive basis for their coming together, then yes, better they don't bother.
I am guessing the basis for this is the evil spectre of gay marriage? Centuries of war and decades of terrorism didn't do it, but gay marriage is a bridge too far it seems.
No, just "gayness" in general it would seem. The DUP is putting forward a bill commonly referred to as a "conscience clause", effectively letting people / businesses discriminate on issues of sexual orientation if an issue runs counter to their beliefs.
Hmmm. So if I decide that unionism or religious persuasion or whatever runs contrary to my beliefs, I can discriminate?
No, interestingly enough (unless i'm mistaken) this is only concerned with sexual orientation.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:02:22 PM
How can organisations poles apart with disastrous consequences for decades,now co operating,be anything but good news?
Because the cooperating involves discriminating against others.
The conscience clause is just a pr stunt looking for votes. Can the catholic church not see this?
2 organisations stuck in the dark ages coming together for a bill stuck in the dark ages... Yeah Tony that's the future we all want ::) ::) ::)
Surely Christian people should not be legally obliged to provide goods or services that are contrary to their beliefs.If they are being legally compelled to do so then that is discrimination surely.I don't see how a conscience clause is unreasonable.
On a wider point I think there is a realisation that Christian denominations need to discard doctrinal differences and come together to promote core basic principles in an ever increasingly secular world.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 07:48:42 PM
Surely Christian people should not be legally obliged to provide goods or services that are contrary to their beliefs.If they are being legally compelled to do so then that is discrimination surely.I don't see how a conscience clause is unreasonable.
Of course you don't.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 07:48:42 PM
Surely Christian people should not be legally obliged to provide goods or services that are contrary to their beliefs.If they are being legally compelled to do so then that is discrimination surely.I don't see how a conscience clause is unreasonable.
Are you opposed to the marriage or the fact they're gay? What would you do had you to work with a gay person?
I would (and do) treat gay people the same way as I treat everyone else.But I disapprove of the lifestyle and consider that they already have sufficient rights without demeaning marriage and elevating an unconventional partnership to the level of a normal one.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 08:03:44 PM
I would (and do) treat gay people the same way as I treat everyone else.But I disapprove of the lifestyle and consider that they already have sufficient rights without demeaning marriage and elevating an unconventional partnership to the level of a normal one.
What exactly do you mean by "the lifestyle"? Do you think gay people chose to be gay? If so, why on earth would they if they had to encounter horrible, bigoted f**kers like you.
Will Jewish or Muslim owned butchers be forced to stock pork products?
So disapproval of something makes one a bigot? Well this board is full of bigots then,just look at the attitudes towards Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:15:48 PM
So disapproval of something makes one a bigot? Well this board is full of bigots then,just look at the attitudes towards Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular.
What right do you have to disapprove of a person's sexual orientation which is something over which they have no control? Also, aren't Christians meant to be non-judgemental in any case?
Just wondering whether at a different time there might have been a schism in the Catholic Church because, as I see it, there appears to be a split between two different kinds of Catholics--on the one hand, there are those who align themselves with evangelical Protestantism, the social conservatives, and on the other, those who advocate social justice, the social liberals. The two seem to have diametrically opposed notions of what it means to be Christian. And then I return to the mantra of WWJD--What Would Jesus Do? Maybe Benedict and Francis epitomize this division.
Jesus would love the sinner and hate the sin.Equality is not achieved by approving or tolerating sin,and it is total hypocrisy to advocate gay marriage etc while ridiculing Christianity and Christians
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 07:48:42 PM
Surely Christian people should not be legally obliged to provide goods or services that are contrary to their beliefs.
Define "beliefs"
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:36:17 PM
Jesus would love the sinner and hate the sin.Equality is not achieved by approving or tolerating sin,and it is total hypocrisy to advocate gay marriage etc while ridiculing Christianity and Christians
As is claiming to be a Christian and judging and advocating discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:36:17 PM
Jesus would love the sinner and hate the sin.Equality is not achieved by approving or tolerating sin,and it is total hypocrisy to advocate gay marriage etc while ridiculing Christianity and Christians
The concept of 'sin' should have no relevance in defining the laws of our country.
As for the hypocrisy you're referring to, can you explain?
I am not advocating discrimination against anyone,but my religious beliefs mean that I preceive some practices to be sinful,and I am entitled to those beliefs and to have them taken into account if for example I go into business and am asked to provide a service which runs contrary to those beliefs.
Maguire there is increasing intolerance (which exceeds that shown to gay people) being shown to Christians in this Country today.Thats were the hypocrisy lies
Is that why you started the thread?
? I started the thread to point out the coming together of previous polar opposites
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:45:07 PM
I am not advocating discrimination against anyone,but my religious beliefs mean that I preceive some practices to be sinful,and I am entitled to those beliefs and to have them taken into account if for example I go into business and am asked to provide a service which runs contrary to those beliefs.
So would you do business with divorcees, adulterers, thieves, liars?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:53:06 PM
? I started the thread to point out the coming together of previous polar opposites
The DUP may have been opposites of Catholic Church but i can't say it is vice versa
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:53:06 PM
? I started the thread to point out the coming together of previous polar opposites
well it was that, attention seeking or using the subject matter or seeing this as a way to try to callout people as it was obvious you would see them as hypocrites?
I would do business with any person providing the goods or service requested is not in contradiction of my beliefs.Ashers I understand were perfectly happy to supply a cake but not to ice it with a design endorsing gay marriage
How great would it be to live in a world without religion for a year?
In 200 years time they'll be laughing their balls off at us.
I'd say their balls will be massive. Maybe not. Were cavemen's balls bigger than ours?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 10:03:34 PM
I would do business with any person providing the goods or service requested is not in contradiction of my beliefs.Ashers I understand were perfectly happy to supply a cake but not to ice it with a design endorsing gay marriage
I think the Ashers case may be a bit of a red herring. I wouldn't be surprised if Ashers won this case on the basis of the very point you make. But it is being used as an excuse to introduce this legislation which would allow for wholesale discrimination.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:47:15 PM
Maguire there is increasing intolerance (which exceeds that shown to gay people) being shown to Christians in this Country today.Thats were the hypocrisy lies
It's not intolerance of Christians practicing their religion, it's intolerance of attempts to discriminate or impose laws based on religious beliefs on wider society.
It boils down to personal belief.If a business person is asked to provide goods or services which directly and clearly contradict his or her beliefs then I see this as a case of conflicting rights.It is not discrimination (which in my opinion is simply treating someone or a group less favourably because they happen to belong to a body/group of which the person discriminating gratuitously opposes or doesn't like due to bog standard prejudice)
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 10:22:27 PM
It boils down to personal belief.If a business is asked to provide goods or services which contradict his or her beliefs then I see this as a case of conflicting rights.It is not discrimination (which in my opinion is simply treating someone or a group less favourably because they happen to belong to a body/group of which the person discriminating gratuitously opposes or doesn't like due to big standard prejudice)
So, you run a B&B and a gay couple ask to book a room... the same service as you're offering all customers, bed and board. Should you be able to use this 'conscience clause' to turn them away?
Most definitely.Why when you believe a practice to be sinful should you be compelled to facilitate it under your roof.
I would like to categorically state that William McCrea has never used rent boys when on business in London.
That is all.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 10:31:51 PM
Most definitely.Why when you believe a practice to be sinful should you be compelled to facilitate it under your roof.
So you're denying them the exact same service you're providing to other people. You're discriminating against them because they're gay. And who's to say they're going to even do anything you would consider 'sinful' in your B&B?
If a straight unmarried couple wanted to stay in your B&B would you turn them away? If you weren't sure if they were married (or weren't sure they were married to each other) would you ask for evidence? You wouldn't want to run the risk of facilitating sin.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 10:31:51 PM
Most definitely.Why when you believe a practice to be sinful should you be compelled to facilitate it under your roof.
If two men ask for a double room to maybe get a better deal than two single rooms would you ask them if they are gay before letting them in?
If a gay couple wanted to rent a room to clearly spend a night in that room as a normal heterosexual married couple,yes I believe the owner of a B&B should have a right to refuse their custom.
Quote from: thebigfella on February 24, 2015, 06:05:57 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:02:22 PM
How can organisations poles apart with disastrous consequences for decades,now co operating,be anything but good news?
Because both organisations are full of cnuts........
Hard to argue with that........
So, Tony, you would reserve the right to deny service to 'sinners'? I'm thinking you'd be out of business instantaneously. Would you have your hypothetical hotel customers sign off that they had no intention of engaging in, nor ever had, engaged in sodomy. What about your kinky heterosexual customers. Maybe install cameras to discourage sinfulness. What about yourself? Refuse to accept payment because of repeated 'self-abuse'? Also a sin.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 11:01:18 PM
If a gay couple wanted to rent a room to clearly spend a night in that room as a normal heterosexual married couple,yes I believe the owner of a B&B should have a right to refuse their custom.
You want to respond to any of the specifics I mentioned?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:02:22 PM
How can organisations poles apart with disastrous consequences for decades,now co operating,be anything but good news?
Tony by that lamentable "thinking" you would welcome the unification of Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews in an active and shared hatred of say black east africans.
Your "logic" is absolutely frightening
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:32:26 PM
So you'd prefer the old order of neither the twain shall meet? That was a great time wasn't it?
Are you presenting religious differences in NI and dicrimination against gays as alternatives? Or even worse as the only 2 alternatives.
I prefer a different alternative - one free of discrimination
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 07:48:42 PM
Surely Christian people should not be legally obliged to provide goods or services that are contrary to their beliefs.If they are being legally compelled to do so then that is discrimination surely.I don't see how a conscience clause is unreasonable.
Tony
A whabbi muslim qualifies as a teacher in england and secures a teaching post in a co-educational school. He asks the girls to sit in the front half of the room and put their fingers in their ears. He then sits in the middle of the room facing the boys who sit at the back of the room. He teaches the boys only and does not let the girls to set eyes upon the boys. Both of his decisions are based upon his religious beliefs. You presumably would back him in his decisions and use and would use the conscience clause to support him should the same situation arise in NI?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 07:48:42 PM
Surely Christian people should not be legally obliged to provide goods or services that are contrary to their beliefs.If they are being legally compelled to do so then that is discrimination surely.I don't see how a conscience clause is unreasonable.
Tony
You are travelling along northway towards lurgan and you suffer pains in your chest and suspect a heart attack. Unwilling to take the risk of remaining in control of your car you pull over and ring an ambulance to take you the short trip to Craigavon hospital. When the ambulance arrives the ambulance driver refuses to assist you becasue you are a sinner and defyer of gods law (as indicated by the trimmed hair around your temples and the cotton-polyester blend in your shirt). No doubt this will please you greatly?
Quote from: Rossfan on February 24, 2015, 09:11:24 PM
Will Jewish or Muslim owned butchers be forced to stock pork products?
No. But I guess you and everyine else knew that
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 24, 2015, 09:44:10 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:36:17 PM
Jesus would love the sinner and hate the sin. Equality is not achieved by approving or tolerating sin,and it is total hypocrisy to advocate gay marriage etc while ridiculing Christianity and Christians
The concept of 'sin' should have no relevance in defining the laws of our country.
As for the hypocrisy you're referring to, can you explain?
Exactly
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:47:15 PM
Maguire there is increasing intolerance (which exceeds that shown to gay people) being shown to Christians in this Country today.Thats were the hypocrisy lies
I'm unaware of anyone trying to impinge upon your right to believe whatever you want.
There will ofcourse be sensible restriction placed upon how you can act that will have an impact on others
Such false equivalency on this thread from some posters (not just Tony).
If you go in to a halal or kosher butchers looking for pork, they'll point you, not unreasonably to the pork butcher down the road. This is because the business they are in is supplying a specific type of food for certain religions.
Same thing if you walk into a umbrella shop for priests (they do exist, you know) and say do you have anything in rainbow, I'm playing a round of golf this afternoon - they'll say, sorry about that there is a McGuirk's across the way.
However, if you set up a cake shop and don't call it "Ecclesiastical Eccles Cakes to Go", then undoubtedly, you will get requests from the general public to fulfill certain needs with those cakes - ie birthdays, weddings etc. As long as the requests are legal, and people aren't asking you to go all Sweeney Todd on it, then as a business person, you should be able to recognise the difference between commerce and religion, and mature enough to understand Christ's adage "render unto Caesar what is Caesars".
Now if you did call it "Ecclesiastical Eccles Cakes" and made the point that you only do religious themed cakes, that would be okay as well. But just don;t expect to stay in business all that long. Which is the grating point here - these peoples' principles are only as deep as their pockets. They are willing to make money out of the general public, without even thinking what the phrase "general public" means. If a Muslim walked into a cake shop and asked for a cake to celebrate, I dunno, the end of Ramadan say, and was told no because of religious principle, there would be war about it. But because homosexuals (even devout ones, of which the Catholic Church has plenty) don't have the explicit cover of religion, they can be discriminated against.
And as for "Fearon Towers", do I even have to point out the twisted logic that would have Bert and Ernie turned away at the door, whilst that nice Mr Grey and his partner Anastasia get the red room at the front, with the bay window and the ankle shackles?
If you're going to stand on religious principles, then at least be consistent and discriminate against everyone you feel violates those principles, put it up on the sign above the door, and exhibit some of this fabled moral courage the devout supposedly possess? And when the liquidator comes (because believe me, he'll have to get there faster than the Equality Authority) at least you can say you fought the "good" fight.
By the way Tony, or should i say Basil, I'm sure homosexuals the world over are so glad that you feel they have "sufficient" rights. I'm sure the Loyalists thought the same in the 60s when they were denying housing, jobs, and civil rights to Catholics.
Maybe the DUP Alliance isn't uch a bad idea after all.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 11:01:18 PM
If a gay couple wanted to rent a room to clearly spend a night in that room as a normal heterosexual married couple,yes I believe the owner of a B&B should have a right to refuse their custom.
You didn't answer my question though maybe it wasn't totally clear what I was asking. If two heterosexual men want to stay in your hypothetical b+b in a double room for better value than two single rooms, would you ask if they are gay before letting them in?
If you are Christian you believe sex outside marriage is wrong then yes,if it is your view that an unmarried couple want to have a room in your B&B to engage in sex as well as sleep then you should have the right to refuse their custom.
In all cases you are simply preventing sinful activity taking place under your roof or not facilitating such activity.You are not discriminating against the potential customers themselves.
Now let's look at things that are currently legal such as Pubs displaying notices such as "No Football Tops" Is this not discriminating against Football Fans? Smoking is banned in shops,pubs and all businesses.Is this not discriminating against smokers?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 06:11:35 AM
If you are Christian you believe sex outside marriage is wrong then yes,if it is your view that an unmarried couple want to have a room in your B&B to engage in sex as well as sleep then you should have the right to refuse their custom.
In all cases you are simply preventing sinful activity taking place under your roof or not facilitating such activity.You are not discriminating against the potential customers themselves.
So you only give a room to those who you could confirm as being married to each other? And the question is not just what you should be able to do, but what YOU would do.
It boils down to individual conscience and the likelihood of the B&B owner facilitating sinful activity in his or her home.Thats why it called a conscience clause.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 07:25:40 AM
It boils down to individual conscience and the likelihood of the B&B owner facilitating sinful activity in his or her home.Thats why it called a conscience clause.
I was interested in your conscience.
There are so many angles to T.F.'s insane pseudo-morality that you'd want to be M.C. Escher to get a handle on it. Just one more that hasn't already been demolished is the question of why he feels the necessity to crusade (images of a fool on a horse and a windmill) against others' "sin". What's it got to do with him? As far as I understand it, his church requires him to be answerable for his own sin, not for that of others. In fact, I think it has some specific instructions on the subject:
"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
It seems to me that he "sins" by interfering with the privacy of two people booking a room for the night.
Catholic Church & DUP with a conscience! Oh the irony...
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 06:11:35 AM
If you are Christian you believe sex outside marriage is wrong then yes,if it is your view that an unmarried couple want to have a room in your B&B to engage in sex as well as sleep then you should have the right to refuse their custom.
In all cases you are simply preventing sinful activity taking place under your roof or not facilitating such activity.You are not discriminating against the potential customers themselves.
Now let's look at things that are currently legal such as Pubs displaying notices such as "No Football Tops" Is this not discriminating against Football Fans? Smoking is banned in shops,pubs and all businesses.Is this not discriminating against smokers?
By that logic passive smoking could be classed as assault by smokers. FFS get a grip.
Sorry it is an obligation on all Christians not to facilitate sin.By not facilitating or endorsing sinful practice is in no way or by any stretch of any anti Christian imagination,an act of judgement moral or otherwise on anyone.
It is laughable to say that I or Ashers are "crusading against sin".What sort of impoverished intellect could equate crusading against sin with a simple refusal to endorse gay marriage on a cake simply because to do so would contradict your religious beliefs?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 09:08:32 AM
Sorry it is an obligation on all Christians not to facilitate sin.By not facilitating or endorsing sinful practice is in no way or by any stretch of any anti Christian imagination,an act of judgement moral or otherwise on anyone.
Where is the line drawn between not facilitating a sin and loving the sinner, as Christians profess to do, in this case of the hypothetical Christian B&B owner?
Bloody hell. Fearon is basically justifying sharia law. I'm amazed that I'm amazed, yet somehow I manage to be amazed.
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2015, 09:23:59 AM
Bloody hell. Fearon is basically justifying sharia law.
Exactly. But, of course, muslims are infidels, and damned. Their law would be an abomination. Another sharp bend on Fearon's road to salvation negotiated without slowing down. Only a Catholic version of sharia law is permissible. But here's another chicane - common cause for casual discrimination can be found in an alliance with militant protestants (previously dismissed and damned to perdition as an apostate cult). Never mind. Drive on.
Christians busy consulting Bible for next basic human right to oppose
After the first night of legal Gay marriage ceremonies in England and Wales, Christians are today desperately leafing through the Bible to identify another basic human right to rail against.
Followers of the faith who have long opposed the right of homosexual couples to commit themselves to a life of petty bickering and sex-withholding, now find themselves with little to do, concerned that the devil himself finds work for idle hands.
Sheila Mount, a Catholic from Shropshire, was adamant she would waste little time in filling the vacuum by finding new ways to persecute the remainder of God's orphans.
"I mean, two people, in love, getting married – the thought turns my stomach," she told us.
"I have spent the last 20 years trying to find something in the Bible that categorically states God is firmly against Gay marriage and turned up nothing concrete."
"All I could ever find was that Jesus was once kissed by a man called Judas – but look what happened to him afterwards?"
"To now have to start all over looking for something new to spout hatred about, well – it's just so time-consuming."
"That said, Deuteronomy 22:9 is pretty clear on what God thinks of farming, so I've spent the morning protesting farmers who insist on planting two different crops next to each other."
"The disgusting animals."
Gay rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, was happy to offer Christians some guidance in helping them isolate the next section of society to treat like market traders in the Temple.
"It's clear that the Bible is being abused as a kind of Yellow Pages for people too thick to find a worthy axe to grind."
"So why not do a reprint in gaudy yellow pages, with an index of noble causes yet to be persecuted?"
"I'm sure it'd be a nice little money spinner."
http://newsthump.com/2014/03/30/christians-busy-consulting-bible-for-next-basic-human-right-to-oppose/
Someone answer me this.Is it reasonable to force a Christian or anyone else for that matter to act in a way that directly contradicts his or her beliefs? That's what this boils down to.
Someone answer me this. Is it reasonable for a Christian to force a non-Christian or anyone else for that matter to act according to the Christian's conscience and not his own? That's what this boils down to.
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2015, 09:23:59 AM
Bloody hell. Fearon is basically justifying sharia law. I'm amazed that I'm amazed, yet somehow I manage to be amazed.
Religious fundamentalists of all hues have much in common, I'm not amazed at all.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 06:02:22 PM
How can organisations poles apart with disastrous consequences for decades,now co operating,be anything but good news?
The catholic church by and large abandoned its flock to the murderous work of the state during those times, with the honourable exceptions of a few individuals within the church.
Now you're getting it Hardy.It is a complex conflict of competing rights.
Now if the same malign categorisation applied by the previous poster to "Christian Fundamentalists" had been applied to "Gays" there'd be hell to pay,but alas Christians apparently are fair game for bigots.
Nonsense. It's rights versus dogma. Nobody's interfering with your right to believe what you want. You, on the other hand, want the right to prevent other people from making their own life decisions.
Quote from: johnneycool on February 25, 2015, 10:56:25 AM
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2015, 09:23:59 AM
Bloody hell. Fearon is basically justifying sharia law. I'm amazed that I'm amazed, yet somehow I manage to be amazed.
Religious fundamentalists of all hues have much in common, I'm not amazed at all.
True. But every time I think he can't stoop any lower, he somehow manages it.
Bullshit.I am exercising my right not to facilitate practices I believe to be immoral and sinful and which contradict my religious beliefs.The secular equivalent to this is asking a law abiding citizen to assist with a Bank Robbery
That illustrates the problem nicely. Your dogma teaches you that people's private life decisions, which have no impact on your ability to live your life as you please, have the same status as crimes. And that that gives you the right to interfere in those decisions.
Quote from: Hardy on February 25, 2015, 11:42:16 AM
That illustrates the problem nicely. Your dogma teaches you that people's private life decisions, which have no impact on your ability to live your life as you please, have the same status as crimes. And that that gives you the right to interfere in those decisions.
Hear, hear.
It does impact on my ability to live my life as I please (part of which is the avoidance of sin or facilitation of same) if Im asked to ice a cake endorsing gay marriage or provide a room in my house for gay sex.Surely you a man of advanced years can grasp this simple and obvious point.
I think Ashers will be successful in their defence of the case brought against them by the Equality Commission. You shouldn't be required to create an item which you find offensive, whether it's a gay cake or a GAA cake. What should not be permitted is that you make the gay/GAA cake for one person but refuse to make it for someone else because they're gay or black or a Prod. Same logic applies to running a B&B. If you can't bring yourself to provide the service to someone because they are gay, you need to find another line of work.
Ashers will not provide icing on a cake endorsing gay marriage for anyone.That I believe is their right.Now if they refused to sell a cake to a person or persons just because they are gay,thats an entirely different matter which should attract punishment.
As a person who was ordered out of a shop as a young boy in Portadown while.attempting to buy a comic,when I gabe the name my school is response to a question from the shopkeeper,I can only marvel at the changes Ive seen in my lifetime.
QuoteAs a person who was ordered out of a shop as a young boy in Portadown while.attempting to buy a comic,when I gabe the name my school is response to a question from the shopkeeper,I can only marvel at the changes Ive seen in my lifetime.
very good!
Lol! I didn't even intend that pun! ;D
Fearon finds another topic that allows him to argue against everyone else and say some controversial stuff that will get him attention and reactions. ::)
Tony sorry to be the one to break this to you but if this was a boxing match you'd have been knocked out 3-4 pages ago, I have to admire the way you keep carrying on taking the beatings your taking but at least your not going down without a fight...lol :) :) :)
How? By the amount of bigots ganging up on me? It certainly isn't due to any logical coherent argument on their part.In fact the intellectual deficit is frightening on this Board as evidenced by the inability to understand that those who refuse to compromise on deeply held religious beliefs are being neither discriminatory or bigoted.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 01:46:23 PM
How? By the amount of bigots ganging up on me? It certainly isn't due to any logical coherent argument on their part.In fact the intellectual deficit is frightening on this Board as evidenced by the inability to understand that those who refuse to compromise on deeply held religious beliefs are being neither discriminatory or bigoted.
Yes Tony, all the ones arguing for
'live and let live' are the bigots. You, who insists on
'live as I say', on the other hand are a model citizen and are a perfect fit for the DUP. You will undoubtedly go straight to Heaven.
You will enjoy that, sneering from above at the rest of us for eternity.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 01:46:23 PM
How? By the amount of bigots ganging up on me? It certainly isn't due to any logical coherent argument on their part.In fact the intellectual deficit is frightening on this Board as evidenced by the inability to understand that those who refuse to compromise on deeply held religious beliefs are being neither discriminatory or bigoted.
I'd hope you aren't including me in your idea of a bigot and you still haven't answered my question. From my interpretation from your response it seems that if you even slightly think there might be something happening that might go against your beliefs you have the right to refuse service to people even though you have no evidence whatsoever. So say if you were a publican you could throw two lads who are having a pint together out of your bar just incase they are on a date even though they might both be straight. What I would like to know is how far do YOU go to try and find out the actual facts of what is happening rather than just assuming you know?
Quote from: muppet on February 25, 2015, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 01:46:23 PM
How? By the amount of bigots ganging up on me? It certainly isn't due to any logical coherent argument on their part.In fact the intellectual deficit is frightening on this Board as evidenced by the inability to understand that those who refuse to compromise on deeply held religious beliefs are being neither discriminatory or bigoted.
Yes Tony, all the ones arguing for 'live and let live' are the bigots. You, who insists on 'live as I say', on the other hand are a model citizen and are a perfect fit for the DUP. You will undoubtedly go straight to Heaven.
You will enjoy that, sneering from above at the rest of us for eternity.
I hope Tony doesn't book into Heaven Hotel a week early ;) It's easy to get dates mixed up. :)
On the contrary I believe in live and let live bit when a lifestyle of which I don't approve impinges directly on my life and choices then I expect my rights and beliefs to be accorded respect.
Andoireabu I accept it can be difficult.Two same sex people in a bar having a drink,even if they are in a relationship I don't have a problem with.On the other hand the same two people sharing a bed in my house would present me with a crisis of conscience.I don't think I could consent to their custom if I was a B&B owner.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 11:56:59 AM
It does impact on my ability to live my life as I please (part of which is the avoidance of sin or facilitation of same) if Im asked to ice a cake endorsing gay marriage or provide a room in my house for gay sex.Surely you a man of advanced years can grasp this simple and obvious point.
Is that not what confessions is for? Sure it's ok for the catholic church to turn a blind eye when it suits though
The Church or certain members who demean it is largely irrelevant.It is up to every individual member to follow divine teaching to the best of his or her ability.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 02:12:25 PM
Andoireabu I accept it can be difficult.Two same sex people in a bar having a drink,even if they are in a relationship I don't have a problem with.On the other hand the same two people sharing a bed in my house would present me with a crisis of conscience.I don't think I could consent to their custom if I was a B&B owner.
What if they aren't gay though? What if they are both heterosexual and just want a better deal? Do you ask them straight out if they are gay or do you assume they are just incase they might be?
Quote from: andoireabu on February 25, 2015, 02:18:53 PM
What if they aren't gay though? What if they are both heterosexual and just want a better deal? Do you ask them straight out if they are gay or do you assume they are just incase they might be?
Tony's gaydar would tell him.
I cannot perceive any other plausible reason why two same sex members would want to share a bed.In fact in my experience hetrosexual males are loathe to even share a room!
I'm just wondering how many of the great defenders of human rights here would willingly be seen entering a gay bar or club for example?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 02:30:21 PM
I cannot perceive any other plausible reason why two same sex members would want to share a bed.In fact in my experience hetrosexual males are loathe to even share a room!
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 02:32:11 PM
I'm just wondering how many of the great defenders of human rights here would willingly be seen entering a gay bar or club for example?
When you are 100% comfortable in your own sexuality, these aren't an issue. However, if you have any doubts and try to go to the extreme to defend your own true feelings on the matter...then I can see why you have a problem with the above.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 02:17:53 PM
The Church or certain members who demean it is largely irrelevant.It is up to every individual member to follow divine teaching to the best of his or her ability.
Can you show me where exactly 'divine teaching' instructs you to impose your will on homosexuals?
It was perfectly acceptable to discriminate against the Catholic / Nationalist community in the recent history of Ireland (north and south), because they had a belief political / religious view to the Unionist / Protestant community at that time.
Is do you find that unacceptable then and this acceptable now?
Incidentally the Conscience Clause has far wider implication than you realise Tony.
If a private business wants to turn away customers - let them at it. It creates a grand little opportunity for someone else.
E.g if Tony's mythical B+B doesn't want gay couples, unmarried heterosexual couples or whatever - open another B+B near him with a sign saying "All paying guests welcome".
Different if it's a public body e.g a Council refusing Planning permission to a gay couple to build a house.
Ziggy i do not support discrimination against anyone.
Rossfan I am in agreement with you.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 25, 2015, 03:48:04 PM
If a private business wants to turn away customers - let them at it. It creates a grand little opportunity for someone else.
E.g if Tony's mythical B+B doesn't want gay couples, unmarried heterosexual couples or whatever - open another B+B near him with a sign saying "All paying guests welcome".
Different if it's a public body e.g a Council refusing Planning permission to a gay couple to build a house.
The same rationale used by supporters of segregation in the South during Jim Crow. Open your own shop, Dr King.
Rubbish.It is not segregation,discrimination nor bigotry to retain the right to refrain from providing goods or services contrary to your religious beliefs.If a Catholic pharmacist refuses to stock contracepties for catholic customers is thatbdiscrimination? Ashers have basically done something similar to this.
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2015, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 25, 2015, 03:48:04 PM
If a private business wants to turn away customers - let them at it. It creates a grand little opportunity for someone else.
E.g if Tony's mythical B+B doesn't want gay couples, unmarried heterosexual couples or whatever - open another B+B near him with a sign saying "All paying guests welcome".
Different if it's a public body e.g a Council refusing Planning permission to a gay couple to build a house.
The same rationale used by supporters of segregation in the South during Jim Crow. Open your own shop, Dr King.
Dr King's shop would no doubt get the custom of fair minded whites and ALL the black people.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 25, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2015, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 25, 2015, 03:48:04 PM
If a private business wants to turn away customers - let them at it. It creates a grand little opportunity for someone else.
E.g if Tony's mythical B+B doesn't want gay couples, unmarried heterosexual couples or whatever - open another B+B near him with a sign saying "All paying guests welcome".
Different if it's a public body e.g a Council refusing Planning permission to a gay couple to build a house.
The same rationale used by supporters of segregation in the South during Jim Crow. Open your own shop, Dr King.
Dr King's shop would no doubt get the custom of fair minded whites and ALL the black people.
What, both of them? How far does this libertarian notion of yours go? Do you think attempts to get Harland and Wolff and Shorts to employ Catholics to have been an infringement on their civil liberties? Maybe the Taigs should have set up their own ship yard.
You remind me of that remit that used to head the Equality Authority.
He came up with so many PC off the wall rulings FF had to fire him.
Last straw was when ruled against a publican who refused to serve a drunk lad who had a child with him at 9 PM.
He declared it discrimination against people with children.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 02:32:11 PM
I'm just wondering how many of the great defenders of human rights here would willingly be seen entering a gay bar or club for example?
I have no problem going into gay bars. In fact, since I don't go to church anymore it's the only place where I meet Priests.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 02:30:21 PM
I cannot perceive any other plausible reason why two same sex members would want to share a bed.In fact in my experience hetrosexual males are loathe to even share a room!
(http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu206/Hardyarse/LampHinBed_zpsghydjhkd.png) (http://s648.photobucket.com/user/Hardyarse/media/LampHinBed_zpsghydjhkd.png.html)
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 02:32:11 PM
I'm just wondering how many of the great defenders of human rights here would willingly be seen entering a gay bar or club for example?
I don't know if you will find a date here, but good luck with it.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 25, 2015, 04:38:30 PM
You remind me of that remit that used to head the Equality Authority.
He came up with so many PC off the wall rulings FF had to fire him.
Last straw was when ruled against a publican who refused to serve a drunk lad who had a child with him at 9 PM.
He declared it discrimination against people with children.
Can you provide a link to this case? Thanks.
No,.. It was 2009 or 2010 as far as I recall. Crowley was the head of that Body.
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2015, 05:06:05 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 25, 2015, 04:38:30 PM
You remind me of that remit that used to head the Equality Authority.
He came up with so many PC off the wall rulings FF had to fire him.
Last straw was when ruled against a publican who refused to serve a drunk lad who had a child with him at 9 PM.
He declared it discrimination against people with children.
Can you provide a link to this case? Thanks.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/publicans-attack-daft-bid-to-scrap-child-pub-curfews-26060772.html
Michael McDowell subsequently amended the law to bring in the 9pm curfew for minors in the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 09:36:17 PM
Jesus would love the sinner and hate the sin.Equality is not achieved by approving or tolerating sin,and it is total hypocrisy to advocate gay marriage etc while ridiculing Christianity and Christians
By that logic, it must be total hypocrisy to advocate racial equality while ridiculing racists.
Is there anything that
can't be labeled hypocrisy by that standard?
Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "hypocrisy"?
For example, if I was to advocate for gay marriage while, behind the scenes doing everything I could to prevent it, that would be hypocritical. Advocating for something while ridiculing those who oppose it, is not, in any shape or form, hypocrisy. And intolerance of intolerance is not a bad thing.
That's the case I thought it might be, armaghniac. No mention of drunkenness there, and the law has been changed since then. Rightly so, in my opinion, but it's so much easier to lump people in with those you don't like than respond to awkward scenarios.
Quote from: deiseach on February 25, 2015, 06:25:08 PM
That's the case I thought it might be, armaghniac. No mention of drunkenness there, and the law has been changed since then. Rightly so, in my opinion, but it's so much easier to lump people in with those you don't like than respond to awkward scenarios.
I don't know if there were any subsequent cases.
I'd oppose, as a matter of principle, anything that unites the DUP and Catholic Church
If only Big Ian was around now things could be so much different
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2hqrvxl.png)
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 04:10:57 PM
Rubbish.It is not segregation,discrimination nor bigotry to retain the right to refrain from providing goods or services contrary to your religious beliefs.If a Catholic pharmacist refuses to stock contracepties for catholic customers is thatbdiscrimination? Ashers have basically done something similar to this.
It would be discrimination only if they sold condoms to non-Catholic customers.
As i've said, I suspect Ashers will win their case, and I suspect the DUP know this, hence the push on this legislation before a judgement is made.
But your B&B scenario is totally different. You're providing a room and breakfast - it's the same service whether it's a man and a woman, two women, or two men. Therefore you are discriminating based on the customer and not the service.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 04:10:57 PM
Rubbish.It is not segregation,discrimination nor bigotry to retain the right to refrain from providing goods or services contrary to your religious beliefs.
But "religious beliefs" can be a cover for ANY belief. It's a totally subjective concept. If your beliefs mean you object to interracial relationships, for example, should you be allowed to refuse a room in your B&B to an interracial heterosexual couple?
Maguire if you're a Christian and believe homosexuality to be sinful,then by letting out a room in your house two homosexuals you are ,according to your beliefs,facilitating sinful activity,and in return for pecuniary game which makes it worse.
You are not discriminating against homosexuals in any way,you are simply refusing to facilitate sinful activity.
You would also not let a room knowingly to an unmarried heterosexual couple either,for the same reason.
Religious beliefs are the qualifying factor,as accepted by the main Christian churches
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 07:58:01 PM
Religious beliefs are the qualifying factor,as accepted by the main Christian churches
Ah right, so only things that are a problem for YOU. If it's a problem for people with non-Christian religious beliefs, well they just have to accept equality legislation? ::)
And you think that such a definition could be made in legislation, do you? Are you suffering from this "intellectual deficit" you referred to?
It becomes a problem for me if I'm a Christian and in business and a prospective customer demands goods or services the supply of which are in direct conflict with my beliefs
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 07:56:04 PM
Maguire if you're a Christian and believe homosexuality to be sinful,then by letting out a room in your house two homosexuals you are ,according to your beliefs,facilitating sinful activity,and in return for pecuniary game which makes it worse.
You are not discriminating against homosexuals in any way,you are simply refusing to facilitate sinful activity.
You would also not let a room knowingly to an unmarried heterosexual couple either,for the same reason.
Is sleeping against your religion?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 08:08:57 PM
It becomes a problem for me if I'm a Christian and in business and a prospective customer demands goods or services the supply of which are in direct conflict with my beliefs
Then you shouldn't be in business. If the customer is asking for the same goods or services as you're providing for every other customer, then you're discriminating.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 07:56:04 PM
Maguire if you're a Christian and believe homosexuality to be sinful,then by letting out a room in your house two homosexuals you are ,according to your beliefs,facilitating sinful activity
But the Catholic church does not hold homosexuality to be sinful. I holds homosexual ACTS to be sinful. Therefore, as the hypothetical owner of the B&B refusing a room to the gay couple, you are discriminating against them for being gay, not for anything "sinful".
Jesus, has he actually opened this B'n'B? Might be worth the trip for a laugh.
By Tony's logic, a homosexual couple would be unwelcome because it would be facilitating sinful activity. Whilst Cardinal Brady would be more than welcome, as he has never facilitated sinful activity. Ever. And even if he did he was only a young fella. And he wasn't the only one at fault, sure the parents were more to blame than he was.
How do you like your eggs in the morning your worship??
Same goods and services? Ashers don't ice gay wedding cakes for anyone.The likelihood of a homosexual couple engaging in sex in a shared bed is reasonably high don't you think? This is where the conscience clause comes in.One Christian B&B owner may judge that to provide a Bed in his home for a homosexual couple is likely to be facilitating sinful acts,another may judge he is,to the best of his knowledge,just providing a sleeping accessory.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 08:26:40 PM
Same goods and services? Ashers don't ice gay wedding cakes for anyone.The likelihood of a homosexual couple engaging in sex in a shared bed is reasonably high don't you think? This is where the conscience clause comes in.One Christian B&B owner may judge that to provide a Bed in his home for a homosexual couple is likely to be facilitating sinful acts,another may judge he is,to the best of his knowledge,just providing a sleeping accessory.
Ashers weren't asked to bake a gay wedding cake, whatever a gay wedding cake is.
The likelihood of a homosexual couple engaging in sex in a shared bed is probably as likely as a heterosexual couple engaging in sex in a shared bed. But that's irrelevant, because your business is providing a bed.
If you owned a bed shop, would you refuse to sell a bed to a gay couple?
Fact.Ashers were asked to supply a wedding cake,a request they acceded to.They were further asked to ice a message on the same cake clearly endorsing gay marriage which they refused to do as it contradicted their Christian beliefs.Quite reasonable in my opinion.
Supplying a bed to be removed from your shop and providing one for gay sex under your roof is no way analogous
Or worse again a onesie
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 08:46:05 PM
Fact.Ashers were asked to supply a wedding cake,a request they acceded to.They were further asked to ice a message on the same cake clearly endorsing gay marriage which they refused to do as it contradicted their Christian beliefs.Quite reasonable in my opinion.
Just because you say 'fact' doesn't make it so. Ashers were
never asked to supply a wedding cake, It was never a wedding cake. It was always a cake with the 'offending' message on it. And employees originally accepted the order and management later decided they would not fulfil it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683949/Bakery-court-gay-cake-row-owners-refused-decorate-confectionery-slogan-support-gay-marriage.html
But as i've said, I think this case is a bit of a red herring.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 08:46:05 PM
Supplying a bed to be removed from your shop and providing one for gay sex under your roof is no way analogous
A bed facilitates sex. You're providing the bed. Does the bible differentiate between locations in terms of what constitutes "facilitating sin"?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 10:44:14 AM
Someone answer me this.Is it reasonable to force a Christian or anyone else for that matter to act in a way that directly contradicts his or her beliefs? That's what this boils down to.
Tony
I gave you 2 examples on Page 3 of this thread (the muslim teacher and the christian ambulance driver). Now, given your stance do you back their positions in the respective examples and would you happy for the 2 individuals to be afforded legal protection by way of a conscience clause in statute?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
Bullshit.I am exercising my right not to facilitate practices I believe to be immoral and sinful and which contradict my religious beliefs.The secular equivalent to this is asking a law abiding citizen to assist with a Bank Robbery
And so if any "christian" business refused you service based upon the aforementioned sins of cutting the hair on your temples or wearing clothes woven of separate materials you would just accept that? I'm just looking for the logic and consistency in your views
No because both individuals are not doing the job they applied for and willingly accepted
If my custom was refused anywhere for any reason I would very quickly take it elsewhere and wouldn't make a song or dance about it
Quote from: Rossfan on February 25, 2015, 03:48:04 PM
If a private business wants to turn away customers - let them at it. It creates a grand little opportunity for someone else.
E.g if Tony's mythical B+B doesn't want gay couples, unmarried heterosexual couples or whatever - open another B+B near him with a sign saying "All paying guests welcome".
Different if it's a public body e.g a Council refusing Planning permission to a gay couple to build a house.
I'm reminded of a shop in village in North Derry that (many years ago) refused to sell milk to an aged catholic woman (accused her of romanism and idolatry). By refusing the woman service the viability was unaffectted. By refusing to serve all catholics their trade was not materially diminished.
The "market" has been proposed as bedfellow of the conscience clause. If they are bedfellows it is so in an unholy mess
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 08:26:40 PM
Same goods and services? Ashers don't ice gay wedding cakes for anyone.The likelihood of a homosexual couple engaging in sex in a shared bed is reasonably high don't you think? This is where the conscience clause comes in.One Christian B&B owner may judge that to provide a Bed in his home for a homosexual couple is likely to be facilitating sinful acts,another may judge he is,to the best of his knowledge,just providing a sleeping accessory.
Really? Every night.
BTW stats suggest that over 60% of people pleasure themselves. That is also against your religion. How will your B&B deal with that sin?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 09:17:35 PM
If my custom was refused anywhere for any reason I would very quickly take it elsewhere and wouldn't make a song or dance about it
If only the freed slaves of North America, the indigenous folk of Africa, the chinese of california, the jews of spain, germany (and elsewhere), the irish (in their own land and also then abroad), the colonised peroples of the word and the east africans of the middle east were all as emotionally robust as yourself.
Being refused service in one shop is hardly akin to being eternally downtrodden or subject to lifelong slavery,or denied employment now,is it?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 09:14:32 PM
No because both individuals are not doing the job they applied for and willingly accepted
You would differentiate between religious beliefs held from birth and those acquired during your life even if they were widely held by others?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 09:30:15 PM
Being refused service in one shop is hardly akin to being eternally downtrodden or subject to lifelong slavery,or denied employment now,is it?
Who said that it was.
But all were refused service in a shop. I think they were correct to ultimately stand up for themselves. Do you?
All relative.I still don't think it's unreasonable for Christian people to have a right not to compromise their beliefs
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 09:42:30 PM
All relative.I still don't think it's unreasonable for Christian people to have a right not to compromise their beliefs
Evasion
The conscience clause would be a disaster for any society
Quote from: muppet on February 25, 2015, 09:22:22 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 08:26:40 PM
Same goods and services? Ashers don't ice gay wedding cakes for anyone.The likelihood of a homosexual couple engaging in sex in a shared bed is reasonably high don't you think? This is where the conscience clause comes in.One Christian B&B owner may judge that to provide a Bed in his home for a homosexual couple is likely to be facilitating sinful acts,another may judge he is,to the best of his knowledge,just providing a sleeping accessory.
Really? Every night.
BTW stats suggest that over 60% of people pleasure themselves. That is also against your religion. How will your B&B deal with that sin?
Well Tony?
It all boils down to the individual call of the guest house owner.Im arguing that he should have the right to make that call
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 09:59:11 PM
It all boils down to the individual call of the guest house owner.Im arguing that he should have the right to make that call
This is your guest house. What is your call?
Quote from: muppet on February 25, 2015, 09:22:22 PM
BTW stats suggest that over 60% of people pleasure themselves. That is also against your religion. How will your B&B deal with that sin?
And 35% of people are liars, which is also prohibited by many religions.
As the likelihood of the gay couple having sex is much greater than a single person pleasuring himself I'd let a room to a single person but not to a gay couple.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 10:27:42 PM
As the likelihood of the gay couple having sex is much greater than a single person pleasuring himself I'd let a room to a single person but not to a gay couple.
What about a single gay person?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 10:27:42 PM
As the likelihood of the gay couple having sex is much greater than a single person pleasuring himself I'd let a room to a single person but not to a gay couple.
What are you basing this claim on?
Quote from: muppet on February 25, 2015, 10:36:21 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 10:27:42 PM
As the likelihood of the gay couple having sex is much greater than a single person pleasuring himself I'd let a room to a single person but not to a gay couple.
What are you basing this claim on?
Yeah what if they've been together for a few years and the physical spark has gone. . . how can you tell?
Amazing thread.
Also what if he's not single and he's just away from his partner for the night... if he's gay is there a better chance he'll knock one out compared to a heterosexual male who's away from the missus for the night?
Quote from: rrhf on February 25, 2015, 10:51:09 PM
Amazing thread.
I'm more amazed (in deiseach's sense) by the stuff posted by Tony.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on February 25, 2015, 10:55:54 PM
Quote from: rrhf on February 25, 2015, 10:51:09 PM
Amazing thread.
I'm more amazed (in deiseach's sense) by the stuff posted by Tony.
This thread (and specifically Tony' shambolic contribution) highlights how brilliant it would be if the NI parties had got on to the UK Leaders pre-eclection debate. Obviously it was the correct decision to exclude them (and run separate debates with NI) but imagine Robbo's answers to these questions, or McDonnell's. And then there would be Gerry on "Britain's role in the world" or even worse - economics.
Quote from: LCohen on February 25, 2015, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on February 25, 2015, 10:55:54 PM
Quote from: rrhf on February 25, 2015, 10:51:09 PM
Amazing thread.
I'm more amazed (in deiseach's sense) by the stuff posted by Tony.
This thread (and specifically Tony' shambolic contribution) highlights how brilliant it would be if the NI parties had got on to the UK Leaders pre-eclection debate. Obviously it was the correct decision to exclude them (and run separate debates with NI) but imagine Robbo's answers to these questions, or McDonnell's. And then there would be Gerry on "Britain's role in the world" or even worse - economics.
Imagine his contributions on trampolining and teddies!
Now lads, let's not get sidetracked. Let's concentrate on helping Tony to keep digging this hole.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 10:27:42 PM
As the likelihood of the gay couple having sex is much greater than a single person pleasuring himself I'd let a room to a single person but not to a gay couple.
;D
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 26, 2015, 12:40:30 AM
Now lads, let's not get sidetracked. Let's concentrate on helping Tony to keep digging this hole.
Is it just me or does anyone else spot some really sanctimonious posters on this board?
I'm talking out-of-this-world smug....
It's not just you.If the Churches condemned sex with animals,you'd have plenty on here vehemently protesting for it to be allowed.The whole issue of gay rights is largely irrelevant in the debate,it's all about anti Christians defying the churches at every turn.
The irrational hatred of Christians and Christianity is as sad as it's hard to fathom.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 10:27:42 PM
As the likelihood of the gay couple having sex is much greater than a single person pleasuring himself I'd let a room to a single person but not to a gay couple.
You seem to have a great insight into the sexual activity of gay couples. On what basis can you make such a claim?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 05:33:57 AM
It's not just you.If the Churches condemned sex with animals,you'd have plenty on here vehemently protesting for it to be allowed.The whole issue of gay rights is largely irrelevant in the debate,it's all about anti Christians defying the churches at every turn.
The irrational hatred of Christians and Christianity is as sad as it's hard to fathom.
Are you telling me the Churches
don't condemn sex with animals?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 05:33:57 AM
It's not just you.If the Churches condemned sex with animals,you'd have plenty on here vehemently protesting for it to be allowed.The whole issue of gay rights is largely irrelevant in the debate,it's all about anti Christians defying the churches at every turn.
The irrational hatred of Christians and Christianity is as sad as it's hard to fathom.
You are a fool if you genuinely believe this. Also, 'the whole issue of gay rights' is not largely irrelevant, it is the start and end of the argument. Finally, as an 'anti-Christian' I have every right to'defy the churches at every turn', as you put it. If I am a non-believer, I do not have to follow / adhere to their views / teachings.
You've just proved my argument.
Quote from: foxcommander on February 26, 2015, 03:06:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 26, 2015, 12:40:30 AM
Now lads, let's not get sidetracked. Let's concentrate on helping Tony to keep digging this hole.
Is it just me or does anyone else spot some really sanctimonious posters on this board?
I'm talking out-of-this-world smug....
I usually recognise this familiar desperate whinge as the final concession of game set and match in a discussion.
I would have thought that the Catholic Church would have more sense than to line up along side the right wing evangelical DUP. The same evangelicals who believe the pope has 666 tattooed on his head. As a catholic I would prefer to see the Church reaching out to people in distress over the reasons why the feel the need for an abortion. Or to be a little more Christian about gay and lesbian people who if you believe in the churches teaching are made in Gods image. But no instead the church who covered up for Paedo priests would rather take a moral stand. Although I for one see it as an immoral and unchristian attitude.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 09:17:35 PM
If my custom was refused anywhere for any reason I would very quickly take it elsewhere and wouldn't make a song or dance about it
Yes, yet you've clung to your (possibly contrived) memory of being hoofed out of a comic book shop for being a taig decades ago.
The Church has never condemned gay people and have approached it with the christian ethos of Love the Sinner Hate the Sin approach.I do not see any harm in forming alliances with other denominations,strength in numbers and may also expel a few misconceptions denominations have about each other.
There is some serious warped thinking going on in this thread.
To be fair, each to their own but if a person cant see that the negatives associated with the introduction of a conscience clause far outweigh the positives then its a lost cause.
Things are f**ked up enough in this world and this little part of it we live in without having something else daft to row about.
We have enough problems with education and healthcare infrastructures to sort out without inviting more trivial bullshit onto the list.
Is it too much to ask for a reasonably civilised society where tolerance is normal.
and a lot of this terrible rhetoric comes from middle aged, supposed educated men ffs.
Christians are only asking for tolerance for their views and the right not to have to supply goods and services that directly contradict their beliefs without ending up in court.What is unreasonable about that?
And the people up at camp twaddle are only asking for their religious beliefs and culture etc to be respected too..yadda yadda yadda...its all the same nonsense.
MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT IN NI than this shite.
Keep your religious stuff to yourself. Don't push it on anyone else or promote it to the world. Its personal, keep it that way.
The majority of the people couldn't give a fiddlers. They would rather see waiting times at A&E shorten or more jobs being created locally etc.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 10:48:35 AM
Christians are only asking for tolerance for their views and the right not to have to supply goods and services that directly contradict their beliefs without ending up in court.What is unreasonable about that?
Absolutely nothing. Provided those goods and services are denied to all.
In your hypothetical BnB, the service you provide is a room to sleep in at night and breakfast in the morning. That's it. There's no gay or straight qualification. Regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer, the service is unchanged. Therefore you either provide it to all or you provide it to none and shut up shop.
How can you not see this?
I love this newfound admiration you have for the DUP and their beliefs, what with your regular references to "huns" and the like.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 10:48:35 AM
Christians are only asking for tolerance for their views and the right not to have to supply goods and services that directly contradict their beliefs without ending up in court.
The word "only" is the problem with that statement. You're not ONLY asking for that. You're asking (no, demanding) that your religious views be imposed on others.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 10:07:15 AM
The Church has never condemned gay people and have approached it with the christian ethos of Love the Sinner Hate the Sin approach.I do not see any harm in forming alliances with other denominations,strength in numbers and may also expel a few misconceptions denominations have about each other.
Hence the reason there's loads of gay priests.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 10:27:42 PM
As the likelihood of the gay couple having sex is much greater than a single person pleasuring himself I'd let a room to a single person but not to a gay couple.
I laughed way too loud in the office at work to this ;D
Why? Did you come?
Good article about this in Belfast Telegraph by Liam Clarke. DUP seriously reckon they can pick up votes from catholic conservatives hence they voted unanimously for St Mary's College to retain funding. Things evolving from Prods V Taigs to Christians V The Rest.
Christians v the Rest will never sell tickets.
Now, Christians v Lions, that will put bums on seats. Or Christians v Conor Mcgregor. Or Christians (the lot of them) v Truckosaurus.
Are you not entertained?????
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 03:56:42 PM
Good article about this in Belfast Telegraph by Liam Clarke. DUP seriously reckon they can pick up votes from catholic conservatives hence they voted unanimously for St Mary's College to retain funding. Things evolving from Prods V Taigs to Christians V The Rest.
A few comments by Gregory Campbell or Ruth Patterson will soon send any Catholics scurrying back to the relative normality of SF or SDLP. ;D
Quote from: easytiger95 on February 26, 2015, 04:38:22 PM
Christians v the Rest will never sell tickets.
Now, Christians v Lions, that will put bums on seats. Or Christians v Conor Mcgregor. Or Christians (the lot of them) v Truckosaurus.
Are you not entertained?????
Starring Marlon Brando as the voice of John Truckasaurus.
Tip o' the cap for that one, sir.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 03:54:49 PM
Why? Did you come?
What on earth was that supposed to mean, Tony?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 09:25:12 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on Today at 05:33:57 AM
It's not just you.If the Churches condemned sex with animals,you'd have plenty on here vehemently protesting for it to be allowed.The whole issue of gay rights is largely irrelevant in the debate,it's all about anti Christians defying the churches at every turn.
The irrational hatred of Christians and Christianity is as sad as it's hard to fathom.
You are a fool if you genuinely believe this. Also, 'the whole issue of gay rights' is not largely irrelevant, it is the start and end of the argument. Finally, as an 'anti-Christian' I have every right to'defy the churches at every turn', as you put it. If I am a non-believer, I do not have to follow / adhere to their views / teachings.
You've just proved my argument.
How did I just prove your argument? Just becuase I am not a Christian, this does not mean I have an "irrational hatred of Christians and Chtistianity". Strikes me that you are the only peddling hatred on this thread.
"Starring Marlon Brando as the voice of John Truckasaurus".
Hmmm - not unless they do an Oliver Reed job, methinks. Apparently Marlon is currently "unavailable".
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on February 26, 2015, 07:35:15 PM
"Starring Marlon Brando as the voice of John Truckasaurus".
Hmmm - not unless they do an Oliver Reed job, methinks. Apparently Marlon is currently "unavailable".
It's a Simpsons quote :)
Christians v Larry Reilly.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 03:56:42 PM
Good article about this in Belfast Telegraph by Liam Clarke. DUP seriously reckon they can pick up votes from catholic conservatives hence they voted unanimously for St Mary's College to retain funding. Things evolving from Prods V Taigs to Christians V The Rest.
Any catholic voting for the dup needs a good kick up the ass and told to catch themselves on.
The point made very succinctly in the article is how anyone can claim to be a devout Catholic and Vote for SF or SDLP when these parties oppose aspects of Catholic doctrine?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 11:37:56 PM
The point made very succinctly in the article is how anyone can claim to be a devout Catholic and Vote for SF or SDLP when these parties oppose aspects of Catholic doctrine?
So do you have to be a Catholic to vote for SF or the SDLP?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 11:37:56 PM
The point made very succinctly in the article is how anyone can claim to be a devout Catholic and Vote for SF or SDLP when these parties oppose aspects of Catholic doctrine?
If that's the criteria, they can't vote DUP either. Or any party, really.
Tony, et al, what happens when individual conscience conflicts with church doctrine? I always thought that that individual conscience retains primacy when the two were at odds?
As long as individual conscience does not lead one into sin or endorsement of same.
So, should you act contrary to your conscience when you do something that you believe to be moral but the church considers sinful. Say, for example, birth control, which the Church opposes. Imagine, though, a Third World country, vastly over-populated, where, without birth control, families are churning out children like rabbits, destining them to lives of abject poverty and suffering. If you lived in that situation and your conscience told you that it was more moral to advocate/promote birth control to save families from a grim future than to uphold the Church's teaching, should you follow your conscience, or ignore it and thereby do something wrong in your view?
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 27, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
So, should you act contrary to your conscience when you do something that you believe to be moral but the church considers sinful. Say, for example, birth control, which the Church opposes. Imagine, though, a Third World country, vastly over-populated, where, without birth control, families are churning out children like rabbits, destining them to lives of abject poverty and suffering. If you lived in that situation and your conscience told you that it was more moral to advocate/promote birth control to save families from a grim future than to uphold the Church's teaching, should you follow your conscience, or ignore it and thereby do something wrong in your view?
Would it not make sense to advocate abstinence? No sex outside of marriage maybe? Too many children - surely no/less sex is the answer?
Veering a little away from my question about conscience, but, Iceman, do you seriously believe that advocating abstinence would work in a Third World country. It hasn't exactly been a runaway success in the First World. Heck, even some who have vowed to be celibate have failed to live up to the abstinence standard.
Trouble is you can use your conscience to justify practically anything.As I said as long as you avoid sin.
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 27, 2015, 06:31:04 PM
Veering a little away from my question about conscience, but, Iceman, do you seriously believe that advocating abstinence would work in a Third World country. It hasn't exactly been a runaway success in the First World. Heck, even some who have vowed to be celibate have failed to live up to the abstinence standard.
Do you want to solve the problem or put a sticking plaster on the symptom?
I don't believe your conscience would tell you to do the latter.
I have not engaged so far on this as Tony is a WUM of the highest order and doing his best to blacklist all Catholics.
Iceman, I think that over-population and starvation is a moral issue, one that ranks way higher than the morality of birth control. In this scenario, promoting contraception would not only be more than a band-aid solution, it would be effective, as opposed to a doomed attempt to promote abstinence, and additionally it would be more moral, in my view.
Tony, I ask about conscience simply because I always thought that the Church espoused the view that you shouldn't go against your conscience. In fact, to do so would itself be an occasion of sin.
The purported Catholic-DUP alignment reminds me of Catholics and evangelical Protestants lining up here in the US, inevitably on a couple of hot-button issues, too often ignoring social justice questions, which, for me, constitute the heart of Catholicism, which is why I see a clear divide, a schism, albeit not actual, between two visions of the Church's mission.
Conscience is subjective.Look at loyalist paramilitaries with the mantra "For God and Ulster" thus justifying their indiscriminate Killing sprees.
I understand that, Tony, I'm just asking you as the our de facto Papal Nuncio what the church's teaching is on the primacy of conscience.
I've always been of the simplistic view that anything that elevates human dignity or enhances the human condition is good and anything that diminishes or discriminates is bad, which by a convoluted route returns me to the front desk of Tony's Poyntzpass B & B.
For Christians scripture and Church teachings are the supreme authority.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 09:03:04 PM
For Christians scripture and Church teachings are the supreme authority.
Sorry Tony. That sort of thinking is for losers.
Paisley called himself a man of faith but all he wanted was power.
Stephen King, formerly of HSBC is a priest but he was driven by money.
Still millions of sincere people who abide by scripture though
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 09:33:14 PM
Still millions of sincere people who abide by scripture though
And millions who don't.
I respect the views of the millions who don't ,do you respect the views of the millions who do?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 05:33:57 AM
It's not just you.If the Churches condemned sex with animals,you'd have plenty on here vehemently protesting for it to be allowed.The whole issue of gay rights is largely irrelevant in the debate,it's all about anti Christians defying the churches at every turn.
The irrational hatred of Christians and Christianity is as sad as it's hard to fathom.
The mad ramblings of the insane
Or in other words,"L Cohen's Posts!"
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 10:07:15 AM
The Church has never condemned gay people and have approached it with the christian ethos of Love the Sinner Hate the Sin approach. I do not see any harm in forming alliances with other denominations,strength in numbers and may also expel a few misconceptions denominations have about each other.
Its alright saying that you hate the sin but its wrong to say so and not expect this to have some reflection on the "sinner" or some impact on the "sinner and how a religiously influenced society treat them.
In that context it is vital that when you label something a "sin" (and there is no legal/societal imperative to label anything a "sin") that you provide some evidence of its "sinfulness"
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 10:48:35 AM
Christians are only asking for tolerance for their views and the right not to have to supply goods and services that directly contradict their beliefs without ending up in court.What is unreasonable about that?
If you don't want to sell pork sausages then don't sell them. Not to anyone.
If you don't want to supply heroine, then don't supply it. Not to anyone
If you don't want to supply B&B accommodation, then don't supply it. Not to anyone.
Start picking and choosing who you do supply it to then be wary of the law.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 11:37:56 PM
The point made very succinctly in the article is how anyone can claim to be a devout Catholic and Vote for SF or SDLP when these parties oppose aspects of Catholic doctrine?
These catholics sound a confused bunch
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 06:47:37 AM
As long as individual conscience does not lead one into sin or endorsement of same.
Define sin?
It seems central to your argument
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 27, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
So, should you act contrary to your conscience when you do something that you believe to be moral but the church considers sinful. Say, for example, birth control, which the Church opposes. Imagine, though, a Third World country, vastly over-populated, where, without birth control, families are churning out children like rabbits, destining them to lives of abject poverty and suffering. If you lived in that situation and your conscience told you that it was more moral to advocate/promote birth control to save families from a grim future than to uphold the Church's teaching, should you follow your conscience, or ignore it and thereby do something wrong in your view?
Would it not make sense to advocate abstinence? No sex outside of marriage maybe? Too many children - surely no/less sex is the answer?
Can someone please outline the Catholic's Church's problem with birth control?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 06:37:29 PM
Trouble is you can use your conscience to justify practically anything.As I said as long as you avoid sin.
Tony finally sees the ridiculousness of a conscience clause
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 07:42:20 PM
Conscience is subjective.Look at loyalist paramilitaries with the mantra "For God and Ulster" thus justifying their indiscriminate Killing sprees.
More evidence of Tony talking himself around on the conscience clause
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 09:03:04 PM
For Christians scripture and Church teachings are the supreme authority.
But on what basis?
What is the evidence that scripture should influence modern morals, modern behaviour or modern laws?
No contradiction if one's conscience is informed solely by the teachings of divine scripture.
On the basis that scripture is the divine word of God
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 09:33:14 PM
Still millions of sincere people who abide by scripture though
Millions follow several other ancient texts - should we so so as well, just because they do?
Should we go on crusades to impose our ancient texts on them? Or is it not that important that they follow god's word?
Surely the millions figure is irrelevant if it is out-voted by a bigger number? Why else would the number be important?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 11:14:10 PM
I respect the views of the millions who don't ,do you respect the views of the millions who do?
I can respect the right of someone to hold a view that is contrary to my own. If someone said that people with brown hair could not get married or book a B&B room together I would respect their right to hold that view. i would still question the basis of the view and do my utmost to ensure that such a view was exposed for the lunacy that it was.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 11:33:56 PM
Or in other words,"L Cohen's Posts!"
Engaging in the point as always.
Big and clever
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 11:49:02 PM
On the basis that scripture is the divine word of God
Learn to use the quote button. Then we could establish which point you believe your post addresses.
If scripture is the devine word of god what do you believe other christians should do to address the fact that Tony Fearon trims the hair around his temples and wears clothes of mixed fabric?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 11:14:10 PM
I respect the views of the millions who don't ,do you respect the views of the millions who do?
I certainly do, especially those who don't insist on imposing their values on everyone.
Quote from: LCohen on February 27, 2015, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 27, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
So, should you act contrary to your conscience when you do something that you believe to be moral but the church considers sinful. Say, for example, birth control, which the Church opposes. Imagine, though, a Third World country, vastly over-populated, where, without birth control, families are churning out children like rabbits, destining them to lives of abject poverty and suffering. If you lived in that situation and your conscience told you that it was more moral to advocate/promote birth control to save families from a grim future than to uphold the Church's teaching, should you follow your conscience, or ignore it and thereby do something wrong in your view?
Would it not make sense to advocate abstinence? No sex outside of marriage maybe? Too many children - surely no/less sex is the answer?
Can someone please outline the Catholic's Church's problem with birth control?
Lust is a deadly sin. Deadly sins are bad. Sex, if not for procreation, is engaging in lust. Which is a deadly sin.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on February 28, 2015, 01:04:12 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 27, 2015, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 27, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
So, should you act contrary to your conscience when you do something that you believe to be moral but the church considers sinful. Say, for example, birth control, which the Church opposes. Imagine, though, a Third World country, vastly over-populated, where, without birth control, families are churning out children like rabbits, destining them to lives of abject poverty and suffering. If you lived in that situation and your conscience told you that it was more moral to advocate/promote birth control to save families from a grim future than to uphold the Church's teaching, should you follow your conscience, or ignore it and thereby do something wrong in your view?
Would it not make sense to advocate abstinence? No sex outside of marriage maybe? Too many children - surely no/less sex is the answer?
Can someone please outline the Catholic's Church's problem with birth control?
Lust is a deadly sin. Deadly sins are bad. Sex, if not for procreation, is engaging in lust. Which is a deadly sin.
It's a little more thoughtful and not as heartless as that....
In fact entire books have been written about it - see the Theology of the Body for reference.
Sex is for procreation. Anything goes between a husband and a wife in the bedroom as long as it leads to intercourse and is open to life. You can't be open to life by using contraception. Look up the catechism. The gaaboard is not Catholicanswers.com
Quote from: T Fearon on February 27, 2015, 11:14:10 PM
I respect the views of the millions who don't ,do you respect the views of the millions who do?
I respect the right of people to hold the views, I don't necessarily respect the views themselves, given that many of them are ridiculous.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2015, 03:37:19 AM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on February 28, 2015, 01:04:12 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 27, 2015, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 27, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
So, should you act contrary to your conscience when you do something that you believe to be moral but the church considers sinful. Say, for example, birth control, which the Church opposes. Imagine, though, a Third World country, vastly over-populated, where, without birth control, families are churning out children like rabbits, destining them to lives of abject poverty and suffering. If you lived in that situation and your conscience told you that it was more moral to advocate/promote birth control to save families from a grim future than to uphold the Church's teaching, should you follow your conscience, or ignore it and thereby do something wrong in your view?
Would it not make sense to advocate abstinence? No sex outside of marriage maybe? Too many children - surely no/less sex is the answer?
Can someone please outline the Catholic's Church's problem with birth control?
Lust is a deadly sin. Deadly sins are bad. Sex, if not for procreation, is engaging in lust. Which is a deadly sin.
It's a little more thoughtful and not as heartless as that....
In fact entire books have been written about it - see the Theology of the Body for reference.
Sex is for procreation. Anything goes between a husband and a wife in the bedroom as long as it leads to intercourse and is open to life. You can't be open to life by using contraception. Look up the catechism. The gaaboard is not Catholicanswers.com
I don't understand the Church's fascination with sex.
Also, if it's all about intercourse being "open to life", why would the Church promote the rhythm method? Whilst there's still a chance of conception, that's actively trying to prevent it, therefore no different in aim to artificial contraception, just less effective (and of no value at all in preventing the spread of diseases).
A bunch of old men who never get it of course theyre obsessed with sex
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2015, 03:37:19 AM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on February 28, 2015, 01:04:12 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 27, 2015, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 27, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
So, should you act contrary to your conscience when you do something that you believe to be moral but the church considers sinful. Say, for example, birth control, which the Church opposes. Imagine, though, a Third World country, vastly over-populated, where, without birth control, families are churning out children like rabbits, destining them to lives of abject poverty and suffering. If you lived in that situation and your conscience told you that it was more moral to advocate/promote birth control to save families from a grim future than to uphold the Church's teaching, should you follow your conscience, or ignore it and thereby do something wrong in your view?
Would it not make sense to advocate abstinence? No sex outside of marriage maybe? Too many children - surely no/less sex is the answer?
Can someone please outline the Catholic's Church's problem with birth control?
Lust is a deadly sin. Deadly sins are bad. Sex, if not for procreation, is engaging in lust. Which is a deadly sin.
It's a little more thoughtful and not as heartless as that....
In fact entire books have been written about it - see the Theology of the Body for reference.
Sex is for procreation. Anything goes between a husband and a wife in the bedroom as long as it leads to intercourse and is open to life. You can't be open to life by using contraception. Look up the catechism. The gaaboard is not Catholicanswers.com
So sex between a married, hetrosexual couple would be sinful if one or both of the couple were infertile or post menopause. This is incredible stuff. We need to stop these people booking B&B rooms!!
A woman resisting rape would constitute a moral crisis for some with this sort of logic?
An alliance of gobshites from the two sides sounds like a great idea to me. We could move them all to an uninhabited island of the coast, let them fly union jacks from every rock and live their pure christian life. It could double up as penance and the vow of poverty, lough derg every day of the week. Tony the boat is waiting for you too.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 28, 2015, 03:37:19 AM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on February 28, 2015, 01:04:12 AM
Quote from: LCohen on February 27, 2015, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 27, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 27, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
So, should you act contrary to your conscience when you do something that you believe to be moral but the church considers sinful. Say, for example, birth control, which the Church opposes. Imagine, though, a Third World country, vastly over-populated, where, without birth control, families are churning out children like rabbits, destining them to lives of abject poverty and suffering. If you lived in that situation and your conscience told you that it was more moral to advocate/promote birth control to save families from a grim future than to uphold the Church's teaching, should you follow your conscience, or ignore it and thereby do something wrong in your view?
Would it not make sense to advocate abstinence? No sex outside of marriage maybe? Too many children - surely no/less sex is the answer?
Can someone please outline the Catholic's Church's problem with birth control?
Lust is a deadly sin. Deadly sins are bad. Sex, if not for procreation, is engaging in lust. Which is a deadly sin.
It's a little more thoughtful and not as heartless as that....
In fact entire books have been written about it - see the Theology of the Body for reference.
Sex is for procreation. Anything goes between a husband and a wife in the bedroom as long as it leads to intercourse and is open to life. You can't be open to life by using contraception. Look up the catechism. The gaaboard is not Catholicanswers.com
Does it? Priests etc would condone all sorts as long as it culminated with vaginal sex?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on February 28, 2015, 11:22:50 AM
An alliance of gobshites from the two sides sounds like a great idea to me. We could move them all to an uninhabited island of the coast, let them fly union jacks from every rock and live their pure christian life. It could double up as penance and the vow of poverty, lough derg every day of the week. Tony the boat is waiting for you too.
That is a fantastic idea.
Yes and Myles' Apacolyptic solution is indeed what will happen at the end of time.Wheat separated from chaff
Quote from: T Fearon on February 28, 2015, 04:03:54 PM
Yes and Myles' Apacolyptic solution is indeed what will happen at the end of time.Wheat separated from chaff
I don't know a great deal about these matters, but would it not be the case that your DUP evangelical buddies think that you too will be down stoking the fires of hell with all the other heathens?
Quote from: T Fearon on February 28, 2015, 04:03:54 PM
Yes and Myles' Apacolyptic solution is indeed what will happen at the end of time.Wheat separated from chaff
Lol Tony, this might be your biggest troll effort. If all your selectively chosen and adhered to beliefs actually turn out to be true, it won't be the pearly gates for you. Knackers' yard at best.
Thankfully it will be God that judges me (and everyone else) not the DUP
Quote from: T Fearon on February 28, 2015, 06:59:56 PM
Thankfully it will be God that judges me (and everyone else) not the DUP
That's our point - you're fucked regardless.
If you have to take any sort of a quiz to get in, then Tony's OK, but if you have to book your spot, well then . . . .
Quote from: T Fearon on February 28, 2015, 06:59:56 PM
Thankfully it will be God that judges me (and everyone else) not the DUP
Hopefully your judging of others does not throw a spanner in the works.
When did I judge anyone?
Maybe that couple you banned from the B & B for imagined homosexual acts?
That's not being judgemental.
QuoteSex is for procreation. Anything goes between a husband and a wife in the bedroom as long as it leads to intercourse and is open to life. You can't be open to life by using contraception. Look up the catechism. The gaaboard is not Catholicanswers.com
QuoteI don't understand the Church's fascination with sex.
Also, if it's all about intercourse being "open to life", why would the Church promote the rhythm method? Whilst there's still a chance of conception, that's actively trying to prevent it, therefore no different in aim to artificial contraception, just less effective (and of no value at all in preventing the spread of diseases).
The Rhythm method is open to life. It also promotes abstinence. NFP is hard work - we practice it and it's a big commitment from the Mrs. It's also open to life as nothing artificial is blocking life. Completely different. Diseases won't be spread any further than the couple as the church isn't promoting NFP outside of marriage....
What, Tony? Refusing to let them stay at your hostelry does not involve being judgmental. Sh$t, Mary and Joseph had more luck finding accommodation in Bethlehem than your Poyntzpass guests. You're putting the mental back in the word "judgmental."
Preventing sin in my house is not being judgemental.
Anyone who engages with Anthony in serious debate is equally as deluded.
Really, Tony? "preventing sin in my house is not being judgmental"! And how do you intend to sift the sinners from the saintly in in Tony's House of B & B (Bondage and Buggery")? Since we're all sinners, gay and straight, you'd have to put up a sign "Poyntz 'They Shall Not' Pass, and simply have to close up shop. Every potential visitor would have to pass a judgment test about whether they would, with certainty, commit sin. And don't give two spits of butterfly's piddle about 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'
Anyway, talking about not passing, do you happen to know what radio is covering the Armagh vs. Limerick game?
Accommodating sinners is totally different from facilitating their actual sin.
What if a heterosexual married couple in your B&B were using contraception? Is it better or worse to be facilitating that?
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 01, 2015, 12:34:21 PM
What if a heterosexual married couple in your B&B were using contraception? Is it better or worse to be facilitating that?
Only if they got the Johnnies from the machine in the bogs
Quote from: T Fearon on February 28, 2015, 10:03:54 PM
That's not being judgemental.
;D ;D ;D ;D
You impose a sanction on the gay couple based on your religious beliefs, so yes it certainly is being judgemental.
Quote from: Oraisteach on March 01, 2015, 06:26:20 AM
Really, Tony? "preventing sin in my house is not being judgmental"! And how do you intend to sift the sinners from the saintly in in Tony's House of B & B (Bondage and Buggery")? Since we're all sinners, gay and straight, you'd have to put up a sign "Poyntz 'They Shall Not' Pass, and simply have to close up shop. Every potential visitor would have to pass a judgment test about whether they would, with certainty, commit sin. And don't give two spits of butterfly's piddle about 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'
Anyway, talking about not passing, do you happen to know what radio is covering the Armagh vs. Limerick game?
http://live95fm.ie/Home#
It's not being judgemental,it is simply my desire to not be a party to sin.
Did you not say that you didn't approve of their lifestyle?
Is judgemental one of these words, like hypocrisy and irony, that you don't actually know the meaning of??
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
It's not being judgemental,it is simply my desire to not be a party to sin.
You are God Tony, you are judging that they are sinners.
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 01, 2015, 03:35:33 PM
Is judgemental one of these words, like hypocrisy and irony, that you don't actually know the meaning of??
A lot of people here seem perfectly familiar with the idea of judging people, so could perhaps advise.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 01, 2015, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 01, 2015, 03:35:33 PM
Is judgemental one of these words, like hypocrisy and irony, that you don't actually know the meaning of??
A lot of people here seem perfectly familiar with the idea of judging people, so could perhaps advise.
Only one person is insisting on discriminating against others based on his judgements.
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2015, 03:56:06 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 01, 2015, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 01, 2015, 03:35:33 PM
Is judgemental one of these words, like hypocrisy and irony, that you don't actually know the meaning of??
A lot of people here seem perfectly familiar with the idea of judging people, so could perhaps advise.
Only one person is insisting on discriminating against others based on his judgements.
Perhaps, the others could be better described as favouring coercing people based on their judgements.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 01, 2015, 04:09:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2015, 03:56:06 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 01, 2015, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 01, 2015, 03:35:33 PM
Is judgemental one of these words, like hypocrisy and irony, that you don't actually know the meaning of??
A lot of people here seem perfectly familiar with the idea of judging people, so could perhaps advise.
Only one person is insisting on discriminating against others based on his judgements.
Perhaps, the others could be better described as favouring coercing people based on their judgements.
Only one person is interfering with the lives of others, imposing his judgements on their lifestyle and punishing them accordingly.
You however the believe people who criticise this are the problem.
I don't care what people do,but I am directly affected if they do or wish to do something contrary to my religious beliefs under my roof.It is not being discriminatory or judgemental to assert my right to exercise reasonable control of what happens or doesn't happen under my own roof.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 04:53:38 PM
I don't care what people do,but I am directly affected if they do or wish to do something contrary to my religious beliefs under my roof.It is not being discriminatory or judgemental to assert my right to exercise reasonable control of what happens or doesn't happen under my own roof.
You decided that they are sinners and that is the basis for your discrimination.
Worse than that, you now think you are 'directly affected' by what you think two consenting adults
might do in what should be a private bedroom. This presumably means you think you are not going to Heaven if you allow this. So on this basis you insist you can discriminate against them and then ludicrously claim it isn't discrimination.
If there is a God, I am quite certain people who frivolously inflict unnecessary suffering, embarrassment and pain on their fellow citizens, will not be held up by Him as paragons of virtue. Your resemblance to Paisley's thinking is uncanny. Do you think he is being welcomed at the Pearly Gates with open arms?
The Bible and teachings of all Christian churches makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.Therefore how could any Christian possibly let a room in his or her house,in return for money,to facilitate this practice.
If a Bank is robbed in my area and the police release a photo fit of the suspected couple and later that evening a couple matching fairly closely the photo fit turns up at my house looking for a room,what do I do? Just shrug it off and say it's nothing to do with me,or write it off as a coincidence,that they just happen to look like the wanted couple?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 05:26:46 PM
The Bible and teachings of all Christian churches makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.Therefore how could any Christian possibly let a room in his or her house,in return for money,to facilitate this practice.
If a Bank is robbed in my area and the police release a photo fit of the suspected couple and later that evening a couple matching fairly closely the photo fit turns up at my house looking for a room,what do I do? Just shrug it off and say it's nothing to do with me,or write it off as a coincidence,that they just happen to look like the wanted couple?
You are not letting a room to 'facilitate this practice'. This is where the Catholic Church and the DUP thinking is mutually warped. Not everyone is having sex all the time. The real problem is those with obvious sexual hangups and who insist on allowing them to affect their (never-ending) judgment of others.
As for your daft analogy, are homosexuals bank robbers? ::)
Homosexual or heterosexual couples sharing a bed are more than likely to have sex.In any event doesn't scripture condemn "men lying together?"
Well, Tony, thanks for not accommodating my request for the Limerick station covering the match (BTW Thanks DrinkingHarp). If you had, you'd have facilitated sins of thought, word and deed when I learned that Campbell was unable to play.
Scripture also lays out dietary prohibitions, Tony, and though I've never met you, I understand that you're, how shall I put it, stout, and probably do not adhere strictly to the prescribed food restrictions.
Someone else had beaten me to that.I am sorry,you are a brother in Christ and I should have come to your aid!
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 06:34:34 PM
Homosexual or heterosexual couples sharing a bed are more than likely to have sex.In any event doesn't scripture condemn "men lying together?"
Yes Tony, every time anyone goes to bed they have sex. Just like I said, the sexual hangups are the problem here.
And why are you asking about scripture? You should be able to point exactly to the basis for your discrimination.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 06:34:34 PM
Homosexual or heterosexual couples sharing a bed are more than likely to have sex.In any event doesn't scripture condemn "men lying together?"
"More than likely?" I'm not sure. What's your basis for thinking this?
What I would say is more than likely is that of those who do have sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, they'll be using contraception. How could you go before God if you had facilitated that?!
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 05:26:46 PM
The Bible and teachings of all Christian churches makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.Therefore how could any Christian possibly let a room in his or her house,in return for money,to facilitate this practice.
If a Bank is robbed in my area and the police release a photo fit of the suspected couple and later that evening a couple matching fairly closely the photo fit turns up at my house looking for a room,what do I do? Just shrug it off and say it's nothing to do with me,or write it off as a coincidence,that they just happen to look like the wanted couple?
If anyone turns up at your house, give them a room. If you know they have committed a crime, phone the police. If you have no reason to suspect criminal activity, it's a case of 'nothing to see here'.
According to the logic here you should just give them a room,without question,mind your own business,people are free to do what they want and you must not be judgemental
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 07:36:35 PM
According to the logic here you should just give them a room,without question,mind your own business,people are free to do what they want and you must not be judgemental
Did you not say you weren't being judgemental?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 07:36:35 PM
According to the logic here you should just give them a room,without question,mind your own business,people are free to do what they want and you must not be judgemental
As long as there's no suspicion that someone is breaking the law? Yes.
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 01, 2015, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 07:36:35 PM
According to the logic here you should just give them a room,without question,mind your own business,people are free to do what they want and you must not be judgemental
Did you not say you weren't being judgemental?
8)
That's the logic when you are asked to suspend moral judgement,what anyone else does is none of your business and God forbid (pardon the pun) you would interfere in their right to do what they want or deny them any goods or services ::)
You're getting there. Slowly, but you are getting there.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 01, 2015, 07:55:55 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 01, 2015, 07:47:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 07:36:35 PM
According to the logic here you should just give them a room,without question,mind your own business,people are free to do what they want and you must not be judgemental
Did you not say you weren't being judgemental?
8)
;D
Tony it is like the mods allowing you to post here.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 28, 2015, 11:24:22 PM
Preventing sin in my house is not being judgemental.
So you aim to prevent all sin in your house or do you judge which sins to try to prevent?
Where does your definition of sin come from or do you use judgment in that regard?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
It's not being judgemental,it is simply my desire to not be a party to sin.
I think you are flattering yourself if you think they are going to ask you tp join in.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 05:26:46 PM
The Bible and teachings of all Christian churches makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.Therefore how could any Christian possibly let a room in his or her house,in return for money,to facilitate this practice.
If a Bank is robbed in my area and the police release a photo fit of the suspected couple and later that evening a couple matching fairly closely the photo fit turns up at my house looking for a room,what do I do? Just shrug it off and say it's nothing to do with me,or write it off as a coincidence,that they just happen to look like the wanted couple?
The Bank robbers should definitely be given a room. Then you phone the police and direct them to the room number.
Please give us these examples from the bible that find fault with homosexual acts that you find convincing
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 06:34:34 PM
Homosexual or heterosexual couples sharing a bed are more than likely to have sex.In any event doesn't scripture condemn "men lying together?"
So no difficulty with lesbians then??
When I heard this song for some reason I thought of Tony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHHRpQpa_48&spfreload=10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHHRpQpa_48&spfreload=10)
Listen carefully to the lyrics.........
Here's a story, a true one.Just to show how times have changed,when the free state was generally God fearing or least respectful of religion.Way back in the 80s a friend of mine and his fiancé attended the Late Late show and Gay Byrne had been informed of their engagement,and he called them out and congratulated them live on air. They were pleasantly surprised as they were unaware of this,some of their friends had informed the programme editors beforehand,unbeknown to the couple.
Anyway they returned to their B&B (In Bray) after the show to find their bags packed and to be informed by the Woman of the house that there would be no carry on like that in her residence.Do you know what they did? They laughed about it, and dined out on it for years (and probably still do).They didn't dream of taking a case for discrimination,running to the media etc, and I suppose deep down they respected they woman's views as well.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 11:44:07 PM
Here's a story, a true one.Just to show how times have changed,when the free state was generally God fearing or least respectful of religion.Way back in the 80s a friend of mine and his fiancé attended the Late Late show and Gay Byrne had been informed of their engagement,and he called them out and congratulated them live on air. They were pleasantly surprised as they were unaware of this,some of their friends had informed the programme editors beforehand,unbeknown to the couple.
Anyway they returned to their B&B (In Bray) after the show to find their bags packed and to be informed by the Woman of the house that there would be no carry on like that in her residence.Do you know what they did? They laughed about it, and dined out on it for years (and probably still do).They didn't dream of taking a case for discrimination,running to the media etc, and I suppose deep down they respected they woman's views as well.
Good man, at least you understand you belong to another era like that B&B woman.
Quote from: muppet on March 02, 2015, 12:03:31 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 11:44:07 PM
Here's a story, a true one.Just to show how times have changed,when the free state was generally God fearing or least respectful of religion.Way back in the 80s a friend of mine and his fiancé attended the Late Late show and Gay Byrne had been informed of their engagement,and he called them out and congratulated them live on air. They were pleasantly surprised as they were unaware of this,some of their friends had informed the programme editors beforehand,unbeknown to the couple.
Anyway they returned to their B&B (In Bray) after the show to find their bags packed and to be informed by the Woman of the house that there would be no carry on like that in her residence.Do you know what they did? They laughed about it, and dined out on it for years (and probably still do).They didn't dream of taking a case for discrimination,running to the media etc, and I suppose deep down they respected they woman's views as well.
Good man, at least you understand you belong to another era like that B&B woman.
;D
Ah, the oft-recycled "and they thought it was gas, being thrown out in the middle of the night, anyone who objects to that is obviously a bigot" story. If you were going to be in the Late Late audience on a Saturday/Friday night, why would you book a B&B in Bray? Simply unbelievable, in the sense of not being remotely credible.
Quote from: deiseach on March 02, 2015, 07:23:27 AM
Ah, the oft-recycled "and they thought it was gas, being thrown out in the middle of the night, anyone who objects to that is obviously a bigot" story. If you were going to be in the Late Late audience on a Saturday/Friday night, why would you book a B&B in Bray? Simply unbelievable, in the sense of not being remotely credible.
but it was his friend...
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 02, 2015, 07:57:10 AM
Quote from: deiseach on March 02, 2015, 07:23:27 AM
Ah, the oft-recycled "and they thought it was gas, being thrown out in the middle of the night, anyone who objects to that is obviously a bigot" story. If you were going to be in the Late Late audience on a Saturday/Friday night, why would you book a B&B in Bray? Simply unbelievable, in the sense of not being remotely credible.
but it was his friend...
;D
Quote from: deiseach on March 02, 2015, 07:23:27 AM
Ah, the oft-recycled "and they thought it was gas, being thrown out in the middle of the night, anyone who objects to that is obviously a bigot" story. If you were going to be in the Late Late audience on a Saturday/Friday night, why would you book a B&B in Bray? Simply unbelievable, in the sense of not being remotely credible.
You should have left it at that
Totally true story.And what was wrong and immoral then is still wrong and immoral now.
Dear guest,
Tony's Catholic B&B won't give a room to combinations of two men or two women. Just in case like, we wouldn't want to be party to any sin. The B&B won't give a room to a man & a women who aren't married. Wedding certs will be required as proof, just on case like. No rooms for more than 2 people, obviously, as the temptation would be too great no matter what the gender combination. Single people, who promise not to pleasure themselves, are permitted. However there will be no TV, in case anything stimulating like Glenroe repeats is on, and wifi is not provided in the bedrooms. Just in case like. Anyone caught in possession of condom is out straight away, as that is a sin. Magazines showing too much flesh are banned (all of them) and newspapers will be permitted only after they have been read and all content approved by the proprietor. Checking all newspapers (and entering all competitions) can take some time so check in will be at or after 1801. i.e. Strictly after the Angelus. Checkout will be at 0630, so everyone can go to 0700 mass and there will be no no breakfast as everyone will obviously be fasting.
Others not welcome include anyone who has been on the Late Late Show (except Daniel O'Donnell), anyone who thinks Father Ted is funny, Protestants, lapsed Catholics, a lá carte Catholics and people from Tyrone and Down. Also women who have not been 'churched' will not be accommodated nor indeed anyone who even mentions a type of meat on a Friday. And definitely no children.
Enjoy your stay and,
Please come again.
Why are you so exercised about people who simply want to live by their beliefs?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 06:44:43 PM
Totally true story.And what, in my view,was wrong and immoral then, in my view, is still wrong and immoral now.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 07:29:28 PM
Why are you so exercised about people who simply want to live by their beliefs?
But you don't simply want to live by your beliefs.
You want to impose them on others.
I don't,I don't want to compromise my views to accommodate those of others when it directly affects me,that's all
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 08:08:54 PM
I don't,I don't want to compromise my views to accommodate those of others when it directly affects me,that's all
Will you go to hell if two people have sex in your B&B?
I don't know,but I shouldn't be compelled to facilitate practices which I believe to be sinful
What about bearing false witness Tony?
Delivery and content man. Sometimes your content is spot on - most times it's way off the mark and always your delivery is as smooth as a coral reef.....
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 06:44:43 PM
Totally true story.And what was wrong and immoral then is still wrong and immoral now.
Please define "sin" and "immoral"
Quote from: T Fearon on March 01, 2015, 11:44:07 PM
Here's a story, a true one.Just to show how times have changed,when the free state was generally God fearing or least respectful of religion.Way back in the 80s a friend of mine and his fiancé attended the Late Late show and Gay Byrne had been informed of their engagement,and he called them out and congratulated them live on air. They were pleasantly surprised as they were unaware of this,some of their friends had informed the programme editors beforehand,unbeknown to the couple.
Anyway they returned to their B&B (In Bray) after the show to find their bags packed and to be informed by the Woman of the house that there would be no carry on like that in her residence.Do you know what they did? They laughed about it, and dined out on it for years (and probably still do).They didn't dream of taking a case for discrimination,running to the media etc, and I suppose deep down they respected they woman's views as well.
Even if this story is to be believed it hardly provides a lesson to people who are discriminated against
Sin and immorality shouldn't need defining.They should be fairly obvious, even to the non religious
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 07:29:28 PM
Why are you so exercised about people who simply want to live by their beliefs?
Can't see any evidence of people not being able to live by their beliefs. Nobody is asking a fundamentalist christian to have sex with someone of the same gender.
What they are simply being asked to do is to not discriminate against someone based up a legal, adult, sexual practice.
What they are also been asked to do is to explain the grounds for their desire to enter such a discrimination - something they have failed to do.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 10:03:30 PM
Sin and immorality shouldn't need defining.They should be fairly obvious, even to the non religious
Not at all. If you are going to deny equality you should set out the rules of the game. So let's have it.
I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 10:24:23 PM
I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money
Its still hinging on this definition of sin - so let us hear it
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 10:24:23 PM
I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money
Tony, you are having a lot of fun with this one, and are showing the politician's knack of not answering any questions other than the ones you wished to be asked.
Christian people- as well as any other group of people are legally obliged not to discriminate whether they wish it or not.
I agree,but I contend they shouldn't be "legally" obliged to do so.
LCohen sin is easily definable,they are actually written on tablets of stone.I think you know fine well that the Bible (ie the Word of God as far as Christians are concerned) makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.Why therefore should Christians reasonably be expected (never mind be obliged) to permit this under their roofs,and for pecuniary gain into the bargain ::)
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 10:24:23 PM
I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money
In your own data hypothetical scenario, you are selling rooms under your own roof. You are then pretending that you are 'affected' by everything that happens 'under your own roof' and therefore that you can discriminate, on religious grounds, however you wish.
Thus, while sticking firmly to the (unsaid) manta that surely a man can decide what goes on under his own roof, your B&B is actually place of business first. Refusing people in your place of business, on any of the grounds outlined below, is discrimination.
This is the scope of discrimination legislation in the wee 6:
'Our powers and duties derive from a number of statutes which have been enacted over the last decades, providing protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, race, religion and political opinion, sex and sexual orientation.' - See more at: http://www.equalityni.org/HeaderLinks/About-Us#sthash.cwwdT5UT.dpuf (http://www.equalityni.org/HeaderLinks/About-Us#sthash.cwwdT5UT.dpuf)
Thus you would be breaking the law. Your hypothetical B&B would fail due to your inability to adhere to discrimination legislation almost as quickly as it would fail on your ability to punctually organise bookings.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 11:00:20 PM
LCohen sin is easily definable,they are actually written on tablets of stone.I think you know fine well that the Bible (ie the Word of God as far as Christians are concerned) makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.Why therefore should Christians reasonably be expected (never mind be obliged) to permit this under their roofs,and for pecuniary gain into the bargain ::)
The tablets of stone are the ten commandments, no?
If they define sin, then homosexuality is missing, is it not?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 10:24:23 PM
I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 10:24:23 PM
I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. ;)
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
But by the logic Tony is seeking, the reverse could also apply.
For example if Tony was religiously against parking violators, he could refuse them in preference to Gary Glitter. He thinks it is up to his beliefs and nothing to do with the law.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
Haven't felt the need to reply to tony's trolley, which is obviously done for his own amusement. But the above is far more offensive. The conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia is not only a cheap rhetorical trick, favoured by bigot, it is the lie at the very centre of homophobia. A phenomenon that has persecuted countless good, moral people down through the years - that is dog whistle stuff armarmaghniac. At least the other eejit puts his name to his idiocy.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 01:06:24 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
Haven't felt the need to reply to tony's trolley, which is obviously done for his own amusement. But the above is far more offensive. The conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia is not only a cheap rhetorical trick, favoured by bigot, it is the lie at the very centre of homophobia. A phenomenon that has persecuted countless good, moral people down through the years - that is dog whistle stuff armarmaghniac. At least the other eejit puts his name to his idiocy.
A more devious and manipulative Godwin's?
The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.
My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 11:00:20 PM
LCohen sin is easily definable,they are actually written on tablets of stone.
"Actually", really? "Actually", well in that I'm sure that a few people have had the 10 commandments inscribed on tablets of stone in the last 6000 years. But if I write something on a tablet of stone (or more realistically find a mason that could do it for me) does that make it a sin?
Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
Nonsense. None of these "sins" are illegal. Unless you can show me where in Catholic teaching homosexuality is ranked a more serious sin than the others I mentioned...
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 01:36:03 AM
The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.
My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.
There IS quivalence in all the examples I used. All relate to sexual activity involving consenting adults, all are perfectly legal, and all are "sins" in the eyes of the Church.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 01:36:03 AM
The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.
My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.
Not playing the man, playing your words. I'm not disputing your contention (though i don't agree with it, as I don't consider homosexuality to be a sin) what i'm disputing is your use of paedophillia as an example. As Muppet pointed out above, it as a more devious, manipulative version of Godwins, and its use by the religious hard right on both sides of the Atlantice to reinforce homophobia has been well documented over the past thirty years. And please, spare us your mock outrage - at least Fearon is completely transparent in his bigotry.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 09:42:31 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 01:36:03 AM
The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.
My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.
Not playing the man, playing your words. I'm not disputing your contention (though i don't agree with it, as I don't consider homosexuality to be a sin) what i'm disputing is your use of paedophillia as an example. As Muppet pointed out above, it as a more devious, manipulative version of Godwins, and its use by the religious hard right on both sides of the Atlantice to reinforce homophobia has been well documented over the past thirty years. And please, spare us your mock outrage - at least Fearon is completely transparent in his bigotry.
You made this connection, not I. I could have said Jack the Ripper, but Glitter happened to be in the news of late.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 03, 2015, 06:40:07 AM
Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.
Contraception then... it didn't exist in the first Century yet it is sinful now??
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 04:39:53 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 09:42:31 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 01:36:03 AM
The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.
My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.
Not playing the man, playing your words. I'm not disputing your contention (though i don't agree with it, as I don't consider homosexuality to be a sin) what i'm disputing is your use of paedophillia as an example. As Muppet pointed out above, it as a more devious, manipulative version of Godwins, and its use by the religious hard right on both sides of the Atlantice to reinforce homophobia has been well documented over the past thirty years. And please, spare us your mock outrage - at least Fearon is completely transparent in his bigotry.
You made this connection, not I. I could have said Jack the Ripper, but Glitter happened to be in the news of late.
But you didn't say Jack the Ripper. You could have said it's like having a venture capitalist handle the church collection money. But you didn't. Very, very weak stuff Armaghniac. As I said before, at least Fearon owns up. And blaming the reader for making the connection after you wrote the statement is a trick as old as Nixon. Very weak.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 05:56:18 PM
But you didn't say Jack the Ripper. You could have said it's like having a venture capitalist handle the church collection money. But you didn't. Very, very weak stuff Armaghniac. As I said before, at least Fearon owns up. And blaming the reader for making the connection after you wrote the statement is a trick as old as Nixon. Very weak.
I'd say that you are more familiar with Nixon's tricks than I.
You are someone "who is not playing the man", and who then directly equates someone with a person who orders napalm dropped on people.
Quote from: screenexile on March 03, 2015, 04:51:18 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 03, 2015, 06:40:07 AM
Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.
Contraception then... it didn't exist in the first Century yet it is sinful now??
The ancient romans used goats bladders for condoms.
Quote from: haveaharp on March 03, 2015, 06:28:28 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 03, 2015, 04:51:18 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 03, 2015, 06:40:07 AM
Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.
Contraception then... it didn't exist in the first Century yet it is sinful now??
The ancient romans used goats bladders for condoms.
Grand, so using goats bladder is out.
Thankfully they didn't know about rubber in the 1st Century.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 06:06:30 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 05:56:18 PM
But you didn't say Jack the Ripper. You could have said it's like having a venture capitalist handle the church collection money. But you didn't. Very, very weak stuff Armaghniac. As I said before, at least Fearon owns up. And blaming the reader for making the connection after you wrote the statement is a trick as old as Nixon. Very weak.
I'd say that you are more familiar with Nixon's tricks than I.
You are someone "who is not playing the man", and who then directly equates someone with a person who orders napalm dropped on people.
No I am someone who is comparing you with a right wing politician who wrote the book on how to use dog whistle politics to reinforce discrimination, and also pioneered the passive agressive "ju-jitsu" style of public discourse, by dangling provocative statements and coded signifiers, then feigning hurt innocence when people called him on it. You are someone who compared paedophillia with homosexuality, a comparison I find ojectionable and ignorant, to say the very least. Own your words Armaghniac, and take responsibility for them. Asking you to do that, and calling you out when you don't, is not "playing the man". It's a fair challenge in my book.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 07:07:26 PM
No I am someone who is comparing you with a right wing politician who wrote the book on how to use dog whistle politics to reinforce discrimination, and also pioneered the passive agressive "ju-jitsu" style of public discourse, by dangling provocative statements and coded signifiers, then feigning hurt innocence when people called him on it. You are someone who compared paedophillia with homosexuality, a comparison I find ojectionable and ignorant, to say the very least. Own your words Armaghniac, and take responsibility for them. Asking you to do that, and calling you out when you don't, is not "playing the man". It's a fair challenge in my book.
I gave a single simple example, I did not compare paedophillia with homosexuality nor did I compare traffic offences with homosexuality. From this single example, you are comparing me with a different people in America, a place I do not live and I certainly do not take my arguments from right wing Americans, I am not familiar with them and have a low opinion of them.
QuoteThankfully they didn't know about rubber in the 1st Century.
I don't think requiring consistency with the 1st Century is a strong argument, but I am wary about providing any analogies.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.
You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.
The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.
Stop acting dumb Armagniac, it really doesn't suit you.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 08:19:08 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 07:07:26 PM
No I am someone who is comparing you with a right wing politician who wrote the book on how to use dog whistle politics to reinforce discrimination, and also pioneered the passive agressive "ju-jitsu" style of public discourse, by dangling provocative statements and coded signifiers, then feigning hurt innocence when people called him on it. You are someone who compared paedophillia with homosexuality, a comparison I find ojectionable and ignorant, to say the very least. Own your words Armaghniac, and take responsibility for them. Asking you to do that, and calling you out when you don't, is not "playing the man". It's a fair challenge in my book.
I gave a single simple example, I did not compare paedophillia with homosexuality nor did I compare traffic offences with homosexuality. From this single example, you are comparing me with a different people in America, a place I do not live and I certainly do not take my arguments from right wing Americans, I am not familiar with them and have a low opinion of them.
QuoteThankfully they didn't know about rubber in the 1st Century.
I don't think requiring consistency with the 1st Century is a strong argument, but I am wary about providing any analogies.
You are using the arguments of the American right wing, quite clearly. If you have such a low opinion of them, stop using their tactics. Unfortunately for everyone on this island, Christians and secularists alike, these arguments and tactics are becoming far more prevalent.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.
You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.
The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.
I chose two extreme examples, to illustrate the point. This does not imply any direct connection between the example chosen, or its extremity, and the subject of the thread. This is a rhetorical device. Joe Brolly compared the situation of GAA club players to slavery and Aogán Ó Fearghail stated that this was an over the top comparison and it is open to you to make a similar observation without all the aggro.
As if this is not bad enough,Crossmaglen Rangers are advertising Yoga classes.The late Cardinal Tomas will be turning in his grave
Quote from: T Fearon on March 03, 2015, 09:15:18 PM
As if this is not bad enough,Crossmaglen Rangers are advertising Yoga classes.The late Cardinal Tomas will be turning in his grave
maybe not turning in his grave, but doing a few stretches anyway.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 08:43:37 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.
You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.
The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.
I chose two extreme examples, to illustrate the point. This does not imply any direct connection between the example chosen, or its extremity, and the subject of the thread. This is a rhetorical device. Joe Brolly compared the situation of GAA club players to slavery and Aogán Ó Fearghail stated that this was an over the top comparison and it is open to you to make a similar observation without all the aggro.
It's not aggro, it's simply pointing out the gravity of the comparison
pointing out that the same comparison has been made, over and over again, by bigots to justify discrimination
pointing out that those self same bigots use similar arguments that any drawing of a parallel between the two examples indicates a flaw in the reader/listener than in the person who proposed the point
Rhetorical devices should be used with care. You come on here to argue a view, that I do not agree with, but you propose to do it, in the main, seriously. Which is why your comments are so disturbing.
If you are saying that what you said is over the top, than absolutely, I agree. Should you wish to withdraw your words, then feel free, and fair dues to you.
But given that you are using the Brolly/ Ó Fearghail episode as an example, it would indicate that you either do not understand the seriousness of your words or are purporting not to. Joe Brolly using an outlandish analogy to describe players of a game that they partake voluntarily in, with much enjoyment and reward, does not equate in gravity with comparing peoples valid sexuality (which they have no part in choosing) to a vile criminal act, which as a father, is completely abhorrent to me and every decent person (religious or secularist).
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 11:00:20 PM
LCohen sin is easily definable,they are actually written on tablets of stone.
So the 10 commandments are the definition of sin. That is a good start. It finaly clears up that homosexual acts are not a sin as they are not mentioned in the 10 commandments
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 11:00:20 PM
I think you know fine well that the Bible (ie the Word of God as far as Christians are concerned) makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.
No wait you are not finding it so easy to define sin as you are now introducing other factors.
I have asked you and others time and time again for the biblical references to god's problem with homosexual acts. If the bible is full of such references you will have no difficulty in posting just one that you find convincing - please do so now. Others who made similar claims about "the word of god" pull their quotes from other texts and not the bible. So lets have your convincing quote from the bible?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 02, 2015, 11:00:20 PM
Why therefore should Christians reasonably be expected (never mind be obliged) to permit this under their roofs,and for pecuniary gain into the bargain ::)
Because your beliefs do not form the basis of the law. Your beliefs might influence how you vote and therefore ultimately the law but to do so you will have to enter meaningfully into the debate, have your views critiqued and crucially you will have to provide evidence to support your beliefs in order to convince reasonable and reasoning people to vote in line with yourself.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 09:42:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 08:43:37 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.
You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.
The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.
I chose two extreme examples, to illustrate the point. This does not imply any direct connection between the example chosen, or its extremity, and the subject of the thread. This is a rhetorical device. Joe Brolly compared the situation of GAA club players to slavery and Aogán Ó Fearghail stated that this was an over the top comparison and it is open to you to make a similar observation without all the aggro.
It's not aggro, it's simply pointing out the gravity of the comparison
pointing out that the same comparison has been made, over and over again, by bigots to justify discrimination
pointing out that those self same bigots use similar arguments that any drawing of a parallel between the two examples indicates a flaw in the reader/listener than in the person who proposed the point
Rhetorical devices should be used with care. You come on here to argue a view, that I do not agree with, but you propose to do it, in the main, seriously. Which is why your comments are so disturbing.
If you are saying that what you said is over the top, than absolutely, I agree. Should you wish to withdraw your words, then feel free, and fair dues to you.
But given that you are using the Brolly/ Ó Fearghail episode as an example, it would indicate that you either do not understand the seriousness of your words or are purporting not to. Joe Brolly using an outlandish analogy to describe players of a game that they partake voluntarily in, with much enjoyment and reward, does not equate in gravity with comparing peoples valid sexuality (which they have no part in choosing) to a vile criminal act, which as a father, is completely abhorrent to me and every decent person (religious or secularist).
Very well, my analogy was over the top and implied an inappropriate connection
Let me revise it, just because you do not let a drunk driver drive the team bus, does not mean that you treat someone with a parking ticket or two the same way.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 03, 2015, 06:40:07 AM
Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.
So this sabbath that you keep - when does it start and when does it end?
Is all christian art sinful?
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 09:56:24 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 09:42:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 08:43:37 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 03, 2015, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 03, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 02, 2015, 11:28:19 PM
But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".
This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.
Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.
You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.
The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.
I chose two extreme examples, to illustrate the point. This does not imply any direct connection between the example chosen, or its extremity, and the subject of the thread. This is a rhetorical device. Joe Brolly compared the situation of GAA club players to slavery and Aogán Ó Fearghail stated that this was an over the top comparison and it is open to you to make a similar observation without all the aggro.
It's not aggro, it's simply pointing out the gravity of the comparison
pointing out that the same comparison has been made, over and over again, by bigots to justify discrimination
pointing out that those self same bigots use similar arguments that any drawing of a parallel between the two examples indicates a flaw in the reader/listener than in the person who proposed the point
Rhetorical devices should be used with care. You come on here to argue a view, that I do not agree with, but you propose to do it, in the main, seriously. Which is why your comments are so disturbing.
If you are saying that what you said is over the top, than absolutely, I agree. Should you wish to withdraw your words, then feel free, and fair dues to you.
But given that you are using the Brolly/ Ó Fearghail episode as an example, it would indicate that you either do not understand the seriousness of your words or are purporting not to. Joe Brolly using an outlandish analogy to describe players of a game that they partake voluntarily in, with much enjoyment and reward, does not equate in gravity with comparing peoples valid sexuality (which they have no part in choosing) to a vile criminal act, which as a father, is completely abhorrent to me and every decent person (religious or secularist).
Very well, my analogy was over the top and implied an inappropriate connection
Let me revise it, just because you do not let a drunk driver drive the team bus, does not mean that you treat someone with a parking ticket or two the same way.
So what a homosexual couple might do in a B&B is equated with a drunk driver, and what a heterosexual unmarried couple might do is equated with someone with a parking ticket? That makes things much better. ::)
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 03, 2015, 10:48:14 PM
So what a homosexual couple might do in a B&B is equated with a drunk driver, and what a heterosexual unmarried couple might do is equated with someone with a parking ticket? That makes things much better. ::)
Quite. The latter is sometimes referred as parking.
1 Timothy 1:10-11
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
LCohen could scripture be any more explicit?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 06:51:20 AM
1 Timothy 1:10-11
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
LCohen could scripture be any more explicit?
Timothy 2:12:
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."There you go Tony. Equal rights for women is sacrilegious. In fact getting married under our current laws will probably mean we all go to hell, according to St. Paul. He would probably have flipped at the notion of a female teacher.
Of Paul's view of things is far more influential over the Christian world than any other single individual's, including Jesus. It was believed that he wrote most of the New Testament, but even if he didn't, the book mistakenly attributed to him were almost certainly written by people heavily influenced by him and based on his writings. Of course Paul wasn't one of the Apostles and didn't know Jesus before His crucifixion. Yet his writings are 'The Word of God'.
We are talking specifically about homosexuality here.Other points you allude to are open to wide interpretation.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 09:55:54 AM
We are talking specifically about homosexuality here.Other points you allude to are open to wide interpretation.
So let me get this right, your quote from Timothy is to be taken as the absolute literal Word of God. You sentence doesn't even make sense as a sentence.
Meanwhile this quote from Timothy "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent." is 'wide open to interpretation'.
Not it isn't, it is a proper sentence and the meaning is unambiguous.
Back to your quote: 'The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.'
This obviously excludes women who practise homosexuality, so they are fine. But more importantly there is no main clause to the quote. It is meaningless. Unless of course you have only taken part of the quote.
Here is the full paragraph:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
At least this makes sense.
And here is the full verse on women:
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Tony is bearing false witness if he is claiming that the former is absolute and the latter is 'wide open to interpretation'.
They are from the same book and same author and both from The New Testament. It cannot be argued that they don't have equal weighting. They are either both The Word of God or neither are.
Often amazes me the biblical knowledge those who claim to be non believers have. ::) Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?
The point about women is they are the fairer sex to be looked after and guided by men.Simple as that.But the point about homisexuality is clear and unambiguous.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 10:22:01 AM
Often amazes me the biblical knowledge those who claim to be non believers have. ::) Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?
You can be an expert in the lord of the rings or any other work of fiction. Doesn't mean that you necessarily think it happened.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 10:22:01 AM
Often amazes me the biblical knowledge those who claim to be non believers have. ::) Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?
The point about women is they are the fairer sex to be looked after and guided by men.Simple as that.But the point about homisexuality is clear and unambiguous.
Firstly I do try to my homework before I make up mind, rather than eating whatever is put in front of me.
Secondly, you are bearing false witness again Tony. That is not what St. Paul says. He is crystal clear on the matter of women, far clearer than in your quote.
Your Tim 1:10 quote gives a debatable reference to 'The Law'. My quote: 'A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.' is unambiguous no matter how you to try to cherry-pick it.
Now off home with ye and tell your missus to 'be quite' and give 'full submission'. Let us know how you get on. ;D
Also I expect you to be down at the local school with your DUP friends protesting about women teachers.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 06:51:20 AM
1 Timothy 1:10-11
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
LCohen could scripture be any more explicit?
That seems to be from the "New International Version" of the bible. The fact that the bible seems to have "versions" is a bit of a stumbling block for the contention that it is the immutable word of God, but never mind that for now. This "New International Version" of the bible turns out to be the word, not of God, but of Howard Long, a General Electric engineer. (https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/)
Howard, B.E. seems to be endowed with a more creative imagination than most of us engineering types, who tend to be a wee bit picky about stuff. None of that punctiliousness for Howard, who opens the sluice gate on his creative juices and skilfully transforms the original Verse 10 of Timothy, Chapter 1 from the King James version.
Here is the original Verse 10 - clearly it needed a bit of touching up:
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;Howard puts Roget it the shade, doesn't he?
For balance here is the King James version go Timothy 2:11
"1 Timothy 2:11-15King James Version (KJV)
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
Amazing the differences though between the versions. Remember these versions are in English. Imagine the problem with translations from long extinct languages and the debates that could be had over single words, never mind subjective issues.
Every individual has to make their own interpretation according to context.I am fine with those who like muppet (although I disagree) who believe women should be demeaned,equally I respect the views of non believers,is it too much to ask for my views to be accorded similar respect?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 12:31:04 PM
Every individual has to make their own interpretation according to context.I am fine with those who like muppet (although I disagree) who believe women should be demeaned,equally I respect the views of non believers,is it too much to ask for my views to be accorded similar respect?
Bearing false witness again Tony? You ask your views to be respected when you blatantly lie about mine?
Feck it will be hot down there.
You are cherry picking what to believe to suit your prejudices. You then hide behind religion, the DUP or whatever is handy to justify it.
I didn't propose demeaning women (I note that you are 'fine' with this btw). I pointed out that The Bible demeans women. Without ambiguity.
Your interpretation again.I don't have any prejudices just my own views of what's right and wrong,largely based on religious belief supported by instinct.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 12:48:11 PM
Your interpretation again.I don't have any prejudices just my own views of what's right and wrong,largely based on religious belief supported by instinct.
Ah good.
We are moving away from your original claim of Scripture banned homosexuality because it was a sin and thus you could go to hell if you rented a B&B room to a couple of gay people.
You were absolute in your insistence that it was a sin as prescribed in the Bible. You then interpreted that to meaning you couldn't allow it to happen 'under your roof' in your hypothetical B&B (Bed & Bigot?).
Now it has been diluted to 'largely' an entree of religious belief, served with a cocktail of 'own views' and garnished with 'instinct'. The Bible doesn't seem to be an ingredient in this meal at all!
Er the Bible is on the menu,main course as its the basis of religious belief. ::)
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 02:44:13 PM
Er the Bible is on the menu,main course as its the basis of religious belief. ::)
Here is where I perceive you were on this thread:
The Bible states that this is a sin therefore I must not permit the very possibility of it in my B&B.Now it looks like:
Based on a belief I have, due to something someone said in a very old book, added to my own personal views and mixed with instinct, I will cease to mention banning anyone form my hypothetical B&B and move on.
Wrong.The Bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality and fornication,therefore acting upon this belief I would,acting on conscience,prevent any couple,homosexual,lesbian or hetrosexual from using my home for such.purposes.This clearly shows.my sole aim is to prevent sin not discriminate.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Wrong.The Bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality and fornication,therefore acting upon this belief I would,acting on conscience,prevent any couple,homosexual,lesbian or hetrosexual from using my home for such.purposes.This clearly shows.my sole aim is to prevent sin not discriminate.
Your aim is one thing, your action is to discriminate. If you had your B&B you would quickly find yourself prosecuted if anyone made a complaint, and rightly so.
At the moment but maybe not so after the Ashers verdict.Just because you can be prosecuted doesnt make your action wrong or immoral.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:06:33 PM
At the moment but maybe not so after the Ashers verdict.Just because you can be prosecuted doesnt make your action wrong or immoral.
I can't see discrimination standing up well at the Pearly Gates.
There are many quotes I like about the bible, here are a few of my favorites:
QuoteIf you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.
QuoteWhen I think of all the harm [the Bible] has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it.
QuoteThe word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.
QuoteTo be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries
But this one, this one I really like:
QuoteLike the most of you, I was raised among people who knew - who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts. They knew that they had the truth. In their creed there was no guess — no perhaps. They had a revelation from God. They knew the beginning of things. They knew that God commenced to create one Monday morning, four thousand and four years before Christ. They knew that in the eternity — back of that morning, he had done nothing. They knew that it took him six days to make the earth — all plants, all animals, all life, and all the globes that wheel in space. They knew exactly what he did each day and when he rested. They knew the origin, the cause of evil, of all crime, of all disease and death.
At the same time they knew that God created man in his own image and was perfectly satisfied with his work... They knew all about the Flood -- knew that God, with the exception of eight, drowned all his children -- the old and young -- the bowed patriarch and the dimpled babe -- the young man and the merry maiden -- the loving mother and the laughing child -- because his mercy endureth forever. They knew too, that he drowned the beasts and birds -- everything that walked or crawled or flew -- because his loving kindness is over all his works. They knew that God, for the purpose of civilizing his children, had devoured some with earthquakes, destroyed some with storms of fire, killed some with his lightnings, millions with famine, with pestilence, and sacrificed countless thousands upon the fields of war. They knew that it was necessary to believe these things and to love God. They knew that there could be no salvation except by faith, and through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.
Then I asked myself the question: Is there a supernatural power -- an arbitrary mind -- an enthroned God -- a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world -- to which all causes bow?
I do not deny. I do not know - but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme - that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken — that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer - no power that worship can persuade or change — no power that cares for man.
Is there a God?
I do not know.
Is man immortal?
I do not know.
One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.
We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know. We can tell the truth, and we can enjoy the blessed freedom that the brave have won. We can destroy the monsters of superstition, the hissing snakes of ignorance and fear. We can drive from our minds the frightful things that tear and wound with beak and fang. We can civilize our fellow-men. We can fill our lives with generous deeds, with loving words, with art and song, and all the ecstasies of love. We can flood our years with sunshine — with the divine climate of kindness, and we can drain to the last drop the golden cup of joy.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 26, 2015, 11:37:56 PM
The point made very succinctly in the article is how anyone can claim to be a devout Catholic and Vote for SF or SDLP when these parties oppose aspects of Catholic doctrine?
FFS Tony, are we voting for a political party or a Religious party? It's not Tehran. You can vote for a party on their political policies whilst not wholly supporting them on social issues. I have serious issues with a lot of SF policy but when I look at the choice available...there is none.
Just on your reply to my criticism of the Church's attitude to Gay people your love the sinner line is totally offensive and certainly not christian.
As Christians should we should base our lives on the Gospels. Can Tony or any other BAC show me the passage in any of them that directly denounces Gay people as sinners? There are lots of things in the Old Testament which Christ contradicted. I dont believe he ever said that Gay people were sinners. In fact if you really apply his teachings then tolerance rather than prejudice would inform your views.
Surely for a Christian his or her beliefs are a priority in all aspects of life and it is perfectly reasonable to seek a political party that will protect these via policies?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
Surely for a Christian his or her beliefs are a priority in all aspects of life and it is perfectly reasonable to seek a political party that will protect these via policies?
You will be made very welcome at the DUP.
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Do a lot of the DUP head honcho's not believe el Papa in Rome is the anti-christ or is the fight against homosexuality deemed to be a more righteous crusade for a hues of religious fundamentalist to rally behind?
I believe ISIS are also anti gay, would you not consider joining them?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
Surely for a Christian human his or her beliefs are a priority in all aspects of life and it is perfectly reasonable to seek a political party that will protect these via policies?
I was at a Catholic mass in New York where the priest stated that all catholics must vote Republican in the presidential election as the Republican were the only pro life party. Nobody else i was with thought it was as funny as I did.
I mean all those times the Republican presidents repealed all that pro-choice legislation only for the pesky Democrats to reinstate it when they got back in power, how soon they forget...
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
But where did he say being gay was a sin?
Quote from: heganboy on March 04, 2015, 04:27:27 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
Surely for a Christian human his or her beliefs are a priority in all aspects of life and it is perfectly reasonable to seek a political party that will protect these via policies?
I was at a Catholic mass in New York where the priest stated that all catholics must vote Republican in the presidential election as the Republican were the only pro life party. Nobody else i was with thought it was as funny as I did.
I mean all those times the Republican presidents repealed all that pro-choice legislation only for the pesky Democrats to reinstate it when they got back in power, how soon they forget...
The Vatican were soft of Godwin's subject as well when it suited them.
Politics will shift I think in the US. The Republicans will change their stance on religious issues to win elections and take democratic votes. In the meantime they will lose Catholic and Christian votes in favor of the Green party who will take a hard stance on religious issues. It's all a mess heganboy - the country is great and screwed up all at the same time
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2015, 04:37:26 PM
Politics will shift I think in the US. The Republicans will change their stance on religious issues to win elections and take democratic votes. In the meantime they will lose Catholic and Christian votes in favor of the Green party who will take a hard stance on religious issues. It's all a mess heganboy - the country is great and screwed up all at the same time
Watching Netanyahu address Congress the way he did was astonishing. Truly astonishing. The Republicans would have had Boehner arrested for treason if the reverse situation applied.
Yes it is a great country and the people in general are great.
But a lot of the politicians are amongst the lowest class of vermin on earth.
Quote from: heganboy on March 04, 2015, 04:14:27 PM
There are many quotes I like about the bible, here are a few of my favorites:
QuoteIf you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.
QuoteWhen I think of all the harm [the Bible] has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it.
QuoteThe word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.
QuoteTo be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries
But this one, this one I really like:
QuoteLike the most of you, I was raised among people who knew - who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts. They knew that they had the truth. In their creed there was no guess — no perhaps. They had a revelation from God. They knew the beginning of things. They knew that God commenced to create one Monday morning, four thousand and four years before Christ. They knew that in the eternity — back of that morning, he had done nothing. They knew that it took him six days to make the earth — all plants, all animals, all life, and all the globes that wheel in space. They knew exactly what he did each day and when he rested. They knew the origin, the cause of evil, of all crime, of all disease and death.
At the same time they knew that God created man in his own image and was perfectly satisfied with his work... They knew all about the Flood -- knew that God, with the exception of eight, drowned all his children -- the old and young -- the bowed patriarch and the dimpled babe -- the young man and the merry maiden -- the loving mother and the laughing child -- because his mercy endureth forever. They knew too, that he drowned the beasts and birds -- everything that walked or crawled or flew -- because his loving kindness is over all his works. They knew that God, for the purpose of civilizing his children, had devoured some with earthquakes, destroyed some with storms of fire, killed some with his lightnings, millions with famine, with pestilence, and sacrificed countless thousands upon the fields of war. They knew that it was necessary to believe these things and to love God. They knew that there could be no salvation except by faith, and through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.
Then I asked myself the question: Is there a supernatural power -- an arbitrary mind -- an enthroned God -- a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world -- to which all causes bow?
I do not deny. I do not know - but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme - that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken — that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer - no power that worship can persuade or change — no power that cares for man.
Is there a God?
I do not know.
Is man immortal?
I do not know.
One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.
We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know. We can tell the truth, and we can enjoy the blessed freedom that the brave have won. We can destroy the monsters of superstition, the hissing snakes of ignorance and fear. We can drive from our minds the frightful things that tear and wound with beak and fang. We can civilize our fellow-men. We can fill our lives with generous deeds, with loving words, with art and song, and all the ecstasies of love. We can flood our years with sunshine — with the divine climate of kindness, and we can drain to the last drop the golden cup of joy.
The best cure for Christianity is reading the bible.
- Mark Twain
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 04:46:21 PM
The best cure for Christianity is reading the bible.
- Mark Twain
Iceman has clearly read up on his faith but the others seem to take a long time to come with the relevant quotes.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.
In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.
In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.
Your first paragraph is excellent and sums up a lot of what is wrong with a lot of self perceived christians. I have a lot of respect for a lot of peoples faith though wouldn't be overly religious myself. The attitude however of the judgemental, e.g. the person who started up this thread, stinks. That is not an attack on christianity. It is what is wrong with *some* christians.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
When was the last time? I must have missed any in the last year or so.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:06:33 PM
At the moment but maybe not so after the Ashers verdict.
The B&B scenario put to you is not the same as the Ashers scenario. Ashers may well win their case, but you wouldn't.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Wrong.The Bible is laced with condemnation of homosexuality and fornication,therefore acting upon this belief I would,acting on conscience,prevent any couple,homosexual,lesbian or hetrosexual from using my home for such.purposes.This clearly shows.my sole aim is to prevent sin not discriminate.
So, what way would you screen the heterosexual couples?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 12:48:11 PM
Your interpretation again.I don't have any prejudices just my own views of what's right and wrong,largely based on religious belief supported by instinct.
And finally we get to it. Religion is basically a cover for your "instinct".
So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof? :-\ When will people on this thread differentiate between homesexuals/ homosexuality and the not unreasonable desire not to facilitate sin under ones roof? Such a desire is not a judgement on anyone,it is simply a desire not to facilitate sin.
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 04, 2015, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.
In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.
Your first paragraph is excellent and sums up a lot of what is wrong with a lot of self perceived christians. I have a lot of respect for a lot of peoples faith though wouldn't be overly religious myself. The attitude however of the judgemental, e.g. the person who started up this thread, stinks. That is not an attack on christianity. It is what is wrong with *some* christians.
I agree with this.
Some people have to be Christian against someone or some others.
Many others thankfully do not.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 06:22:37 PM
So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof?
What? Even you are not that monumentally stupid.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 06:22:37 PM
So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof? :-\ When will people on this thread differentiate between homesexuals/ homosexuality and the not unreasonable desire not to facilitate sin under ones roof? Such a desire is not a judgement on anyone,it is simply a desire not to facilitate sin.
It IS a judgement on them, as you don't even know if they'll commit a "sin". And yet you're willing to sell a homosexual couple a bed. It's clear that you're just not comfortable having gay people in your house - the notion of preventing "sin" is a distraction.
Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2015, 07:54:15 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 06:51:20 AM
1 Timothy 1:10-11
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
LCohen could scripture be any more explicit?
Timothy 2:12: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
There you go Tony. Equal rights for women is sacrilegious. In fact getting married under our current laws will probably mean we all go to hell, according to St. Paul. He would probably have flipped at the notion of a female teacher.
Of Paul's view of things is far more influential over the Christian world than any other single individual's, including Jesus. It was believed that he wrote most of the New Testament, but even if he didn't, the book mistakenly attributed to him were almost certainly written by people heavily influenced by him and based on his writings. Of course Paul wasn't one of the Apostles and didn't know Jesus before His crucifixion. Yet his writings are 'The Word of God'.
Thanks muppet, you have done my work here for me.
Tony, I asked you specifically for the biblical extract you find convincing. Do you really find the book of Tim authoritative?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 09:55:54 AM
We are talking specifically about homosexuality here.Other points you allude to are open to wide interpretation.
So is scripture the word of god and sacrosanct or is it open to interpretation and therefore an unreliable basis of law and morals?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 10:22:01 AM
Often amazes me the biblical knowledge those who claim to be non believers have. ::) Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?
The point about women is they are the fairer sex to be looked after and guided by men.Simple as that.But the point about homisexuality is clear and unambiguous.
Such nonsense. Surely it is possible to read a text and find it believable or not.
Surely it is understandable for inquisitive people to study the mad things that others find believable
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 04, 2015, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.
In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.
Your first paragraph is excellent and sums up a lot of what is wrong with a lot of self perceived christians. I have a lot of respect for a lot of peoples faith though wouldn't be overly religious myself. The attitude however of the judgemental, e.g. the person who started up this thread, stinks. That is not an attack on christianity. It is what is wrong with *some* christians.
I struggle a lot with some of the going's on on the board. I find myself engaging on threads where I know I shouldn't where I know I will be beat into submission or silence. But i do anyway. I don't try to be judgmental but try to give a different side to the conversation other than the usual spin that God is made up, anyone who believes in Him is an idiot..... That's hard to read/listen to over and over again without speaking up...
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 12:31:04 PM
Every individual has to make their own interpretation according to context.I am fine with those who like muppet (although I disagree) who believe women should be demeaned,equally I respect the views of non believers,is it too much to ask for my views to be accorded similar respect?
We do respect your right to believe.
In many instances I do not respect what respect what your believe. In those instances it appears to be the worst form of humanity and one not only saddens me greatly but causes direct pain and hurt to many, many people. I think your views represent the worst form that man can take and offer little to the positive enjoyment of life that most seek to enjoy.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 02:44:13 PM
Er the Bible is on the menu,main course as its the basis of religious belief. ::)
It is basis of blief and it is to believed.......because you believe it is to be believed. Where does the corroboration come from that would allow it to be taken seriously?
And then there is the point that most (probably all) who say it is to be believed simply because it is the word of god who, when pressed actually admit that they do not believe in its every word.
The bible categorically is not a reliable souce of history, morality or law
Yeah i can see why you struggle iceman.
*some* athiasts have actually now become what they claim to hate about religion/christians and are hypocrites.
the problem with any attack or defense of catholicism in this board is fearon's opinions. Reasonable people of faith don't think like this and some people are duped into thinking everyone of faith is like that. I feel for the genuine people reading them.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 06:22:37 PM
So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof? :-\ When will people on this thread differentiate between homesexuals/ homosexuality and the not unreasonable desire not to facilitate sin under ones roof? Such a desire is not a judgement on anyone,it is simply a desire not to facilitate sin.
So is this definition of sin still based on teh 10 commandments that the loon on the hill came down with? If it down on them stones we are not to be at it but if it isnt on the list its fair game?
Or is there another definition of sin you want the law to rely on? To have a consience law based on sin you will need a precise definition
LCohen,I would love actually not to believe and to have proof God doesn't exist.But there's something nagging at me saying you pay the price for not doing right.Also the story of the resurrection has survived for over 2000 years.
In any event if it's all false I've lost nothing,I have a good life,good health and count my blessings every day.
Tony, if you do good because you fear having to "pay the price," then I believe you're at the lowest level of Kohlberg's Law of Moral Development, the obedience-punishment level, no different than a child who doesn't steal because it's wrong but because he'll get spanked if he does. So, what's governing your attitude towards your hypothetical B&Bers is perhaps not moral rectitude but, arguably, selfish self-preservation. That seems like a decidedly Old Testament view of a vindictive God, and not one that promotes the Christianity that Pope Francis seems to advocate. It's one that literalist evangelicals follow. Oh, no, for years you've been traipsing up and down the Garvaghy Road in Armagh orange, and maybe all the time you were a fifth columnist for the other crew.
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.
In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.
Quality post.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 06:22:37 PM
So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof? :-\ When will people on this thread differentiate between homesexuals/ homosexuality and the not unreasonable desire not to facilitate sin under ones roof? Such a desire is not a judgement on anyone,it is simply a desire not to facilitate sin.
I think if you will continually judge an act to will find that those who commit the act will find themsleves feeling judged.
If you are going to judge an act negatively on the basis that you consider it a sin you need to be forthcoming with a definition of sin. Your definition (i.e. the 10 commandments) excludes homosexual acts and yet you continue to refer to these vert acts as sinful. You can see how people will not only consider themselves to having been judged but to have been judged on an entirely flawed basis.
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 06:22:37 PM
So according to Hardy it is an act of charity to facilitate sin under your roof?
What? Even you are not that monumentally stupid.
Well, if I was being judgemental........
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 09:59:16 PM
LCohen,I would love actually not to believe
Relevance?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 09:59:16 PM
and to have proof God doesn't exist.
And do you have proof that he does exist? You know real proof that will stand up to robust examination? Please share it
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 09:59:16 PM
But there's something nagging at me saying you pay the price for not doing right.
Ah yes. I recall Joesph Bank's paper on his nagging doubts on butterflies. And did Charles Darwin not make a presentation to the Royal Society on his nagging feelings about earthworms and Isaac Newton similarly about falling apples? You have me there. Its just impossible to find a flaw in an argument based upon nagging feelings.
If you are going to hinge future fate on doing right you will need a robuts definition of "right"
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 09:59:16 PM
Also the story of the resurrection has survived for over 2000 years.
And that proves what exactly?
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.
In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.
Quality stuff hardy
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 09:59:16 PM
LCohen,I would love actually not to believe and to have proof God doesn't exist.But there's something nagging at me saying you pay the price for not doing right.Also the story of the resurrection has survived for over 2000 years.
In any event if it's all false I've lost nothing,I have a good life,good health and count my blessings every day.
You're not really a man of faith. You're just hedging your bets. Why would anyone who believed in god love to not believe in god?
It's a core reason to believe all the same.I'm just saying I would love to have absolute certainty of God's existence or mon existence.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 09:11:34 AM
It's a core reason to believe all the same.I'm just saying I would love to have absolute certainty of God's existence or mon existence.
We've been through this before with you. You're simply applying Pascal's wager. You don't love your god. You fear him.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2015, 09:28:54 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 04, 2015, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.
In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.
Your first paragraph is excellent and sums up a lot of what is wrong with a lot of self perceived christians. I have a lot of respect for a lot of peoples faith though wouldn't be overly religious myself. The attitude however of the judgemental, e.g. the person who started up this thread, stinks. That is not an attack on christianity. It is what is wrong with *some* christians.
I struggle a lot with some of the going's on on the board. I find myself engaging on threads where I know I shouldn't where I know I will be beat into submission or silence. But i do anyway. I don't try to be judgmental but try to give a different side to the conversation other than the usual spin that God is made up, anyone who believes in Him is an idiot..... That's hard to read/listen to over and over again without speaking up...
I'd not prescribe to that notion, but you have a point. I have no problem whatsoever in someone believing in God and having faith and living their life accordingly with zero impact to those who chose to life their life differently.
Tony on the other hand reminds me of a lot of 'devout' Christians who are only interested in how they are perceived, front of the church, bible in hand in solemn prayer, but only use it as a way to look down their noses at the rest of us mere mortals.
They are more interested in the sins of others than any spiritual enlightenment and more often than not miss the message being delivered to them every Saturday/Sunday as they believe its not aimed at them, but the 'sinners' who aren't as 'devout' as them.
Quote from: johnneycool on March 05, 2015, 10:38:33 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2015, 09:28:54 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 04, 2015, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.
In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.
Your first paragraph is excellent and sums up a lot of what is wrong with a lot of self perceived christians. I have a lot of respect for a lot of peoples faith though wouldn't be overly religious myself. The attitude however of the judgemental, e.g. the person who started up this thread, stinks. That is not an attack on christianity. It is what is wrong with *some* christians.
I struggle a lot with some of the going's on on the board. I find myself engaging on threads where I know I shouldn't where I know I will be beat into submission or silence. But i do anyway. I don't try to be judgmental but try to give a different side to the conversation other than the usual spin that God is made up, anyone who believes in Him is an idiot..... That's hard to read/listen to over and over again without speaking up...
I'd not prescribe to that notion, but you have a point. I have no problem whatsoever in someone believing in God and having faith and living their life accordingly with zero impact to those who chose to life their life differently.
Tony on the other hand reminds me of a lot of 'devout' Christians who are only interested in how they are perceived, front of the church, bible in hand in solemn prayer, but only use it as a way to look down their noses at the rest of us mere mortals.
They are more interested in the sins of others than any spiritual enlightenment and more often than not miss the message being delivered to them every Saturday/Sunday as they believe its not aimed at them, but the 'sinners' who aren't as 'devout' as them.
Yes - it always irked me to see people who are quite frankly not nice people up at the front of mass doing all the volunteering trying to look like great people meanwhile they'd steal the eye out of your head.
The everyone who believes in God is stupid argument by some people is ridiculous. As per most of us here I've been brought up in a catholic family and I personally think that people saying this are being very disrespectful to their own family heritage by saying this.
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 05, 2015, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 05, 2015, 10:38:33 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2015, 09:28:54 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 04, 2015, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 04, 2015, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Jesus repeatedly advises that sin must be avoided and that repentance is needed.
Indeed, but you miss his point spectacularly. He's talking about your own sin, not your perception of somebody else's. Not only are you not to concern yourself with the perceived sins of others, you are specifically warned that to do so is possibly the worst sin. The whole point, he says, is faith, hope and charity - "and the greatest of these is charity". He takes great pains to explain what is required under the heading of charity. You must not assume the actions of others to be sinful. You must think the best of people, not the worst. You must not judge or assume yourself to be the arbiter of morality for anybody else. You must only worry about your own morality.
In other words, he went out of his way to condemn people like you. Have you never heard of the Pharisee and the Publican? I have to warn you that if you're basing your whole life ethic and moral foundation on being some sort of teacher's pet or snitch for Jesus, you're going to get an awful gunk when you show up at them gates.
Your first paragraph is excellent and sums up a lot of what is wrong with a lot of self perceived christians. I have a lot of respect for a lot of peoples faith though wouldn't be overly religious myself. The attitude however of the judgemental, e.g. the person who started up this thread, stinks. That is not an attack on christianity. It is what is wrong with *some* christians.
I struggle a lot with some of the going's on on the board. I find myself engaging on threads where I know I shouldn't where I know I will be beat into submission or silence. But i do anyway. I don't try to be judgmental but try to give a different side to the conversation other than the usual spin that God is made up, anyone who believes in Him is an idiot..... That's hard to read/listen to over and over again without speaking up...
I'd not prescribe to that notion, but you have a point. I have no problem whatsoever in someone believing in God and having faith and living their life accordingly with zero impact to those who chose to life their life differently.
Tony on the other hand reminds me of a lot of 'devout' Christians who are only interested in how they are perceived, front of the church, bible in hand in solemn prayer, but only use it as a way to look down their noses at the rest of us mere mortals.
They are more interested in the sins of others than any spiritual enlightenment and more often than not miss the message being delivered to them every Saturday/Sunday as they believe its not aimed at them, but the 'sinners' who aren't as 'devout' as them.
Yes - it always irked me to see people who are quite frankly not nice people up at the front of mass doing all the volunteering trying to look like great people meanwhile they'd steal the eye out of your head.
The everyone who believes in God is stupid argument by some people is ridiculous. As per most of us here I've been brought up in a catholic family and I personally think that people saying this are being very disrespectful to their own family heritage by saying this.
Obviously Tommy and I aren't being judgmental in the slightest ;)
Lol.Not everyone JC just some or else we're as bad as the people we're complaining about!!
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 05, 2015, 07:57:33 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 09:59:16 PM
LCohen,I would love actually not to believe and to have proof God doesn't exist.But there's something nagging at me saying you pay the price for not doing right.Also the story of the resurrection has survived for over 2000 years.
In any event if it's all false I've lost nothing,I have a good life,good health and count my blessings every day.
You're not really a man of faith. You're just hedging your bets. Why would anyone who believed in god love to not believe in god?
He's not even - he focuses exclusively on this one "sin" but doesn't appear to give a toss about the impact all the other "sins" he commits on a daily basis might have on the eternal salvation of his soul.
He is, in short, as we all know and have known for years, a bigot. A bit of a Neanderthal too.
Hello? It's a core tenet of the Christian faith that salvation is a basic requirement, in the form of accepting the saviour, repentance and refraining from sin, to the best of one's ability. I do nothing more than this, because I desire salvation. I do not look down my nose at anyone or judge anyone.What's wrong with that? The Bible constantly tells us to fear God. It's the way you might fear your parents as a young child, but you still love them too.
Attempts to twist my words or misinterpret my sentiments on this thread are perverse. Firstly mocked for my beliefs, then ridiculed for the allegedly having the wrong reasons for them? :-[
Quote from: gallsman on March 05, 2015, 11:51:10 AM
He is, in short, as we all know and have known for years, a bigot. A bit of a Neanderthal too.
Matthew 7:1-2
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
Hello? It's a core tenet of the Christian faith that salvation is a basic requirement, in the form of accepting the saviour, repentance and refraining from sin, to the best of one's ability. I do nothing more than this, because I desire salvation. I do not look down my nose at anyone or judge anyone.What's wrong with that? The Bible constantly tells us to fear God. It's the way you might fear your parents as a young child, but you still love them too.
Attempts to twist my words or misinterpret my sentiments on this thread are perverse. Firstly mocked for my beliefs, then ridiculed for the allegedly having the wrong reasons for them? :-[
I used to tell the priest during confession (back in the day) that I told lies as I was always led to believe that was a sin ,got my 10 hail mary's and a few our fathers, an act of contrition and was on my merry way.
I think you're due a few hail marys the next time you're in the confessional Tone.............
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
Hello? It's a core tenet of the Christian faith that salvation is a basic requirement, in the form of accepting the saviour, repentance and refraining from sin, to the best of one's ability. I do nothing more than this, because I desire salvation. I do not look down my nose at anyone or judge anyone.What's wrong with that? The Bible constantly tells us to fear God. It's the way you might fear your parents as a young child, but you still love them too.
Attempts to twist my words or misinterpret my sentiments on this thread are perverse. Firstly mocked for my beliefs, then ridiculed for the allegedly having the wrong reasons for them? :-[
Belief and fear aren't synonymous though.
Why would someone who is supposedly a devout believer in God say :
Quote from: T Fearon on March 04, 2015, 09:59:16 PM
LCohen,I would love actually not to believe and to have proof God doesn't exist.
How is that misinterpretation? I think it is perverse that a real believer in God would say this?? (You then backtracked by saying you would love proof of his existence or non existence - that's what it was though. Backtracking.
Quote from: foxcommander on March 05, 2015, 02:39:47 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 05, 2015, 11:51:10 AM
He is, in short, as we all know and have known for years, a bigot. A bit of a Neanderthal too.
Matthew 7:1-2
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
Thankfully I don't believe in God or Christianity or any of that and think it's perfectly acceptable, and right, to call bigotry (and those who use religion as a shield for bigotry) out as and when I see it.
At least in the case of someone like Iceman, there exists genuine belief. I don't for a second doubt that he studies the Bible regularly and attempts to live his live according to Christian beliefs. Tony just cherry picks whatever Christian beliefs he fancies that suit his particular agenda and the hides behind them, claiming piety and righteousness.
Tony, don't you think that acting good simply out of fear is a low standard. If you found the proof that you seek of God's non-existence, would you act morally now that your motivation for good behaviour was gone? And wouldn't God, being all-knowing, see your real rationale for what it is?
How would anyone not like to know for certain that God does or does not exist? I will however continue to believe he does.
Like it or not fear is a primary motivating factor in almost everything we do or don't do. I do fear God and his capacity for retribution while hoping that mercy will be shown,and trust in his loving capacity to show mercy. I do not see anything whatsoever wrong with this.
And, so, if he didn't exist, would you still act morally?
Also, will God punish an atheist who acts morally?
I think you're putting your money on Pascal's Wager, Tony. If God exists, and you follow his directions, then eternal happiness. And if he doesn't exist, then no big deal. But if he does exist and you don't believe, then get the charcoal ready.
Yes, but maybe not as much ;D
Quote from: gallsman on March 05, 2015, 03:14:16 PM
Thankfully I don't believe in God
Hopefully someone will keep you in their prayers.
Unfortuantely atheists who act morally will be damned. Acceptance of the Lord (in otherwords belief in him) as your saviour is paramount, along with genuine heartfelt repentance and avoidance of serious/mortal sin.
Then, Tony, you're worshiping an unjust God. Would Jesus damn a moral atheist? God in his omniscience would also be savvy enough to see your good acts for what they are--motivated by self-interest, not altruism. And for that, you might very well end up in the hothouse anyway.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 04:38:37 PM
Unfortuantely atheists who act morally will be damned. Acceptance of the Lord (in otherwords belief in him) as your saviour is paramount, along with genuine heartfelt repentance and avoidance of serious/mortal sin.
That's a very Calvinist outlook.
er how could God welcome someone into his kingdom,who never believed in him? The whole tenet of all Christian faith is Christ's redeeming death on the cross.How can one be redeemed if he or she never believed in the redeemer?
maybe these lads can print up some flyers for Tony's B&B
http://www.joe.ie/news/printing-company-in-drogheda-refuses-to-print-same-sex-marriage-invitations/487284
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 05:44:20 PM
er how could God welcome someone into his kingdom,who never believed in him? The whole tenet of all Christian faith is Christ's redeeming death on the cross.How can one be redeemed if he or she never believed in the redeemer?
What about those who never knew about the redeemer?
Have you shared your views with Pope Francis, Tony. To paraphrase him, I believe he said that we are ALL redeemed by Christ's blood . . . . Even the atheists. So you better be gathering your posse of cardinals for the next conclave if you intend to step back in time.
Yes but you still must accept and believe in the redeemer,repent and avoid sin
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 04:38:37 PM
Unfortuantely atheists who act morally will be damned. Acceptance of the Lord (in otherwords belief in him) as your saviour is paramount, along with genuine heartfelt repentance and avoidance of serious/mortal sin.
Tony, I don't want to be offensive but I'm afraid you are talking through your anal orifice.
Either that or the Holy Father is doing ditto through his.
This is what Pope Francis has had to say on the matter: (http://"http://www.all-about-the-virgin-mary.com/can-atheists-go-to-heaven.html")
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! "Father, even the atheists? "Even the atheists. Everyone!...we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path to peace."
Even allowing for the unholy amount of shite you find in such pronouncements, it's clear that The Boss thinks atheists, as long as they do good, will pass through the Pearly Gates, same as you and Sean Brady.
I don't think that's right because, as Maguire pointed out, there are many good people in the world who've never heard of the Redeemer, and many atheists who are way more Christian (in its broadest sense) than many who have accepted Jesus, and I'm sure Francis is not waving Tata to either of the first two groups.
Thanks, Lar, for excavating the Pope's statement.
God has redeemed all of us,potentially,but unfortunately not everyone will accept that or actually become redeemed.Absolutely no variance between my views and the Pope's.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 08:04:07 PM
God has redeemed all of us,potentially,but unfortunately not everyone will accept that or actually become redeemed.Absolutely no variance between my views and the Pope's.
Apart from the fact that the pope says "The Lord
HAS redeemed all of us" - i.e. we're already redeemed. Past tense. Sorted.
Sometimes I feel as if I and others are being a bit hard on Tony and then I log in and read a post that changes my mind.
I grew up a Catholic, my identity is Irish Catholic. That is who I am. But I make up my own mind on things. My parents and ancestors had no choice regarding religion. It was believe or be damned. Tony still insists most of us will be damned for eternity and yet is astonished when people react. Even when Pope Francis is quoted saying something different he can't accept it.
So we have this scenario: Tony says were are damned. Pope Francis says we are not. Then Tony says his views are compatible with Pope Francis.
Better still we have this: "er how could God welcome someone into his kingdom,who never believed in him?"
Presumably Tony thinks God runs the afterlife like Tony would run his B&B. Or to put it another way, Tony thinks God thinks very like Tony.
If that is the case, I might be better off where I am.
Tony, let me be judgmental. You're wrong. I also don't think you believe everything you're saying. Boy, those Vincentians sure did a number on you. This is like one of those dance marathons, where the contest continues until there's one person standing, and in this case it'll be Tony FEAR-ON, who'll not drop come hell or holy water.
Muppet, I believe no Rhubarbs can get into Heaven.
Tony - can you please confirm?
Does anybody seriously believe Pope Francis meant to say everybody is redeemed,including Brendan Smyth for example? It is obvious that he meant mankind has been redeemed generally by the crucifixion.However individual redemption depends on believing in Christ and the sacrifice he made,repentance and avoidance of serious sin.
I have the Catholic catechism on my shelf.In it it says clearly those who commit mortal sin and don't repent are damned.To interpret the Pope's words as meaning everyone is redeemed regardless of the sins they commit without repenting or don't even believe in God, beggars belief.If this is the case what is the point of a Church existing or the Ten Commandments?
Everybody who does good--Brendan Smyth falls just shy of that standard
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 09:13:37 PM
Does anybody seriously believe Pope Francis meant to say everybody is redeemed,including Brendan Smyth for example? It is obvious that he meant mankind has been redeemed generally by the crucifixion.However individual redemption depends on believing in Christ and the sacrifice he made,repentance and avoidance of serious sin.
I have the Catholic catechism on my shelf.In it it says clearly those who commit mortal sin and don't repent are damned.To interpret the Pope's words as meaning everyone is redeemed regardless of the sins they commit without repenting or don't even believe in God, beggars belief.If this is the case what is the point of a Church existing or the Ten Commandments?
Tony, some children are good, some need a little encouragement and some need the proverbial stick. We treat them differently according to their needs. Maybe God thinks you need the stick.
Quote from: Oraisteach on March 05, 2015, 09:48:34 PM
Everybody who does good--Brendan Smyth falls just shy of that standard
There was a discussion earlier in the thread about the appropriateness of using Gary Glitter as an example, I think using Brendan Smyth as an example suffers from the same problem.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 05, 2015, 10:09:22 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on March 05, 2015, 09:48:34 PM
Everybody who does good--Brendan Smyth falls just shy of that standard
There was a discussion earlier in the thread about the appropriateness of using Gary Glitter as an example, I think using Brendan Smyth as an example suffers from the same problem.
Agreed, but I bet Smyth'' confession was heard and he was absolved of his sins before he died. Anyone want to argue that he wasn't?
I would argue.It is equally preposterous to assume that a confession on one's deathbed,because simply one is at death's door,will be any use
Anthony - what would this board be without you. 30 pages of winding up posters knowing they can never win. It's like 1999.
Quote from: Rossfan on March 05, 2015, 09:06:17 PM
Muppet, I believe no Rhubarbs can get into Heaven.
Tony - can you please confirm?
Yeah they can of course, but sheep worriers- no way! ;D
We have our Hell on Earth - living next door to ye shower :D
Jesus Distancing Himself From Drogheda Printers
A PRINTING company in Drogheda who refused to print invitations for a gay couple's civil partnership ceremony have today been given the cold shoulder by Jesus of Nazereth in a scathing new interview.
The 2015-year-old told WWN he did not support the move by Beulah Print, who claim to represent him and his father, stating he would never agree to such a move.
"First of all: that would be a terrible PR move on our part," said the only son of God. "Neither I, or anyone affiliated with my beliefs, would advise this blatant homophobia under God's name. Sure, Dad created the two lads anyway. Why would he give a toss?"
Jonathon Brennan, who is due to wed his partner of eight years, John Kierans, said he was refused by the printers for the first time yesterday afternoon.
"I've been dealing with them for years," he said. "But when it came to my wedding invitation, they told me that they didn't believe in same sex civil partnerships and homosexuality as they are 'devoted Christians'"
Speaking from his luxury €34mn Shard apartment in London, Mr. Christ reached out to both men, stating that as Christians, the printing company should remember to love thy neighbour as themselves, and not be making their own interpretations of the word of God.
"You see, that's the problem with books; everyone interprets them differently," Jesus explained. "Look what happened when Mohammed tried it – a f**king disaster man".
"I told Dad that getting Peter and the lads to ghostwrite an autobiography was a terrible idea. Now the whole world is getting it wrong," he added, while shooing a pedicurist who was working on his bunions. "It's enough to make me want to go public again".
This is the word of the Lord.
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/03/06/jesus-distancing-himself-from-drogheda-printers/
Now if such a parody was done about a gay couple there would be screams of protest
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2015, 06:38:56 PM
Now if such a parody was done about a gay couple there would be screams of protest
But a gay couple has been discriminated against.
The parody is of the bigoted belief that is being used to justify the discrimination. Of course Tony gets offended at the parody, not the discrimination or the bigotry. Hopefully the printer is sued for serious money.
I hope the opposite happens.If the printer had refused to serve the customer then he would be guilty of bigotry.Instead he was merely not prepared to compromise his religious beliefs.
Same was as a B&B owner I would have no problem letting a single room to an individual homosexual
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2015, 09:09:57 PM
I hope the opposite happens.If the printer had refused to serve the customer then he would be guilty of bigotry.Instead he was merely not prepared to compromise his religious beliefs.
Same was as a B&B owner I would have no problem letting a single room to an individual homosexual
Tony, would you not just takes notes and report the sin to your superiors?
Wouldn't that suffice?
No investigations in this case.Cant see how Ashers or Beulah can lose.No one was treated less favourably,as neither would produce a slogan endorsing gay marriage for anyone,homosexual or hetrosexual
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 04:38:37 PM
Unfortuantely atheists who act morally will be damned.
As an atheist i find that a bit of an empty threat
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 05:44:20 PM
er how could God welcome someone into his kingdom,who never believed in him? The whole tenet of all Christian faith is Christ's redeeming death on the cross.How can one be redeemed if he or she never believed in the redeemer?
You post this shite time and time again. Can you post some proof that god demands belief in his existence and will withhold his benevolent omnipotence from non-believers? Can you even post some sort of rational argument as to why god would behave like this?
To be honest the god you portray sounds like a bit of a dick
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 06:31:13 PM
Yes but you still must accept and believe in the redeemer,repent and avoid sin
Must I?
Quote from: Oraisteach on March 05, 2015, 08:51:56 PM
Tony, let me be judgmental. You're wrong. I also don't think you believe everything you're saying. Boy, those Vincentians sure did a number on you. This is like one of those dance marathons, where the contest continues until there's one person standing, and in this case it'll be Tony FEAR-ON, who'll not drop come hell or holy water.
I think ,ost of us have reached the same conclusions about tony. I still post to point out the intellectual bankruptcy of his musing because even if Tony doesn't believe this stuff incredibily there is still a tiny minority who do.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 09:13:37 PM
Does anybody seriously believe Pope Francis meant to say everybody is redeemed,including Brendan Smyth for example?
Now we are getting somewhere. Religious pronouncements are now open to interpretation and sense checking. Now that you have learned that particular lesson you might want to revisit your bible and catechism
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 10:21:13 PM
I would argue.It is equally preposterous to assume that a confession on one's deathbed,because simply one is at death's door,will be any use
Few would argue that confession to a third party is of any use at any time.
Even most practicing catholics seemed to have abandoned that particular sacrament. The primary school set piece of the first confession is for most now the last and only confession.
Most of the Bible is clear and unambiguous.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2015, 10:35:24 PM
Most of the Bible is clear and unambiguous.
Ok. Was Jesus related to King David? Is the bibe clear and unabiguous on that simple fact?
The core message of belief,repentance and avoidance of sin is clear and unambiguous,family trees are irrelevant
But you adhere unbendingly to all those unambiguous bits from Deuteronomy, and Leviticus and Timothy, cited pages and pages ago, about dietary restrictions, women being subservient/silent and stoning adulterers, or do only the bits you like matter?
Look things have moved on,and stoning adulterers is now frowned upon.What hasn't and won't change however is the fact that adultery is a sin,and this is abundantly clear in the Bible
Quote from: LCohen on March 06, 2015, 10:17:19 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 05, 2015, 04:38:37 PM
Unfortuantely atheists who act morally will be damned.
As an atheist i find that a bit of an empty threat
I was going to say it's funny to see a grown adult threatening other grown adults with the bogeyman, but that's much more succinct.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2015, 10:35:24 PM
Most of the Bible is clear and unambiguous.
:D :D Many of Daniel O'Donnell's songs are in tune.
Actually it has been frowned upon for centuries,but that makes adultery no less a sin
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2015, 11:16:51 PM
Look things have moved on,and stoning adulterers is now frowned upon.What hasn't and won't change however is the fact that adultery is a sin,and this is abundantly clear in the Bible
It's like a compilation of out-takes from Monty Python. Bludgeoning people to death with stones is "now" (not until now, mind) "frowned upon". But sticking your mickey where it doesn't belong will get you eternity in the furnace.
Oops - deleted and re-posted. See Tony's most recent post as a reply to mine that follows it.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2015, 10:53:41 PM
The core message of belief,repentance and avoidance of sin is clear and unambiguous,family trees are irrelevant
Unimportant ehh? I thought Jesus's ancestory was pretty key to christianity?
And the link to David was a key part of fulfilling the old testament prophecy. Are you saying that prophecy fulfillment is unimportanat or that it is part of catholic teaching and that it is catholic techings that are now unimportant?
On the proveable facts the bible is neither clear nor unambiguous. If the basic facts cannot be got correct how are we to know that the jesus quotes are correct? how are we to know that the lesson-giving parables were ever told? were correctly recorded at origin? or have been faithfully translated through the languages?
There is a moral tale in the bible that suggests that if someone tries to sodomise your male house guest you should hand over your daughter for the same treatment in place of the guest. I can see how you can see that as unambiguous but if you believe it to be a clear moral lesson then I suggest that you very urgently need to make yourself known to the mental health authorities.
Lovely Doublethink, Tony, reminiscent of Evil Genius. You acknowledge that times change as do cultural norms. Slavery was once acceptable, but no civilized society endorses it today. The same will be true of discrimination against homosexuals, and you and your antediluvian views will be on the wrong side of history and morality. Even the Church adjusted its thinking on Galileo, albeit centuries too late. Maybe you will admit you're wrong, but pages of text on this site suggest not.
Don't know if Poyntspass has any little Fearons, but hypothetically, what would you do if one of them were gay and wanted a same-sex spouse. Of course, you'd love them, but would you attend their wedding, or would you ostracize them? Even Conservative Dick Cheney changed his tune when he discovered one of his children was gay.
Gays are God's creation as much as you are. They don't choose to be gay, but they are, and they are deserving of love and empathy, spared from discrimination and enmity. Pope Francis thinks so, but you seem to know better than he. Smacks a little of Pride, one of the 7 Deadly Sins.
Paedophiles are also God's creation,but they are still repugnant,as are murderers etc.
Religion is largely down to faith.As I said God's existence can not be proved or disproved.I was interested to learn that Beulah Printing will not commercially endorse binge drinking (eg Stag weekends) or anything else the Company's proprietors deem to be contrary to their beliefs.
This is no crusade against gay people,it is simply a matter of business owners trying to live out their faith in all aspects of their life.This is admirable in this day and age,and they should be commended not condemned.
One of the owners of the printing firm in Drogheda took the time and trouble to visit the hairdresser in his premises to explain clearly why he was unable to fulfil his order (to print wedding invitations to a gay marriage) and he listed other orders in the past he was unable to fulfil due to his religious beliefs.He then offered a handshake to the hairdresser who declined it.
Now in all objectivity who was the reasonable and non bigoted person here?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 08:06:56 AM
One of the owners of the printing firm in Drogheda took the time and trouble to visit the hairdresser in his premises to explain clearly why he was unable to fulfil his order (to print wedding invitations to a gay marriage) and he listed other orders in the past he was unable to fulfil due to his religious beliefs.He then offered a handshake to the hairdresser who declined it.
Now in all objectivity who was the reasonable and non bigoted person here?
However in the 4 years previous he and his Christian business partner were happy to take the same individuals money.
I heard the guy interviewed. The same owner was quite happy to go through different samples of envelopes, paper etc. the week previous.
It would appear that this was a sudden conscience clause
Also unlike the Ashers case, this was to a civil ceremony which is legal under Irish law. Whilst the Ashers case fell within a somewhat grey area, the Louth case is clear cut
You prove the point.If the printer was biased against homosexuals he wouldn't have done business with them at all.
There is no case to answer here.There was no discrimination against the customer on the basis of his sexuality,the business will not produce gay marriage invites for any prospective client,homosexual or heterosexual.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 08:06:56 AM
One of the owners of the printing firm in Drogheda took the time and trouble to visit the hairdresser in his premises to explain clearly why he was unable to fulfil his order (to print wedding invitations to a gay marriage) and he listed other orders in the past he was unable to fulfil due to his religious beliefs.He then offered a handshake to the hairdresser who declined it.
Now in all objectivity who was the reasonable and non bigoted person here?
Somebody walks into your place and informs you that, in his opinion, you are an unworthy person, your lifestyle is repugnant to him and he considers himself morally superior to you and then he wants to shake hands?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 09:51:49 AM
You prove the point.If the printer was biased against homosexuals he wouldn't have done business with them at all.
There is no case to answer here.There was no discrimination against the customer on the basis of his sexuality,the business will not produce gay marriage invites for any prospective client,homosexual or heterosexual.
The customer in this case was told by the printer, that they were against homosexuality and gay marriage.
Yes but not against the customer himself
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 11:16:43 AM
Yes but not against the customer himself
I don't disrespect you as a person - I disrespect you as an Armagh man?
No.Disagreement with what you are about to do (eg gay marriage) is not disrespectful it is simply abiding by your religious beliefs,which are also legal.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 09:51:49 AM
You prove the point.If the printer was biased against homosexuals he wouldn't have done business with them at all.
Tony I don't think you will convince anyone with such an illogical argument.
If a "protestant" eatery said it was prepared to serve catholics but only if used segregated seating at the rear of the building would you believe that represented discrimination?
Surely you can see that merely being willing to serve a customer does not obsolve you of the accusation of discrimination. To avoid the accusation of discrimination then you have to prepared to serve the customer on an equal basis.
You clearly have failed to grasp the very basic premise of equality
According to law,or soon it will be,gays will be allowed to marry in the South.That will be their legal right.It is the legal right similarly of Christians to have beliefs and practice same.However one set of rights should not be allowed to override the other.
As to your analogy of the Protestant eatery,I'm no Petrocelli but I would have thought segregated seating,though perverse,is legally ok as long as all sects are served the same food at the same prices.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 06:40:20 AM
Paedophiles are also God's creation,but they are still repugnant,as are murderers etc.
Religion is largely down to faith.As I said God's existence can not be proved or disproved.I was interested to learn that Beulah Printing will not commercially endorse binge drinking (eg Stag weekends) or anything else the Company's proprietors deem to be contrary to their beliefs.
This is no crusade against gay people,it is simply a matter of business owners trying to live out their faith in all aspects of their life.This is admirable in this day and age,and they should be commended not condemned.
The bit in bold is perfectly true.
But if you are seeking to influence law or public policy then you will have to produce some form of evidence.
I think that is where you will your friend Poots fell down on his decisions on blood donations
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 08:06:56 AM
One of the owners of the printing firm in Drogheda took the time and trouble to visit the hairdresser in his premises to explain clearly why he was unable to fulfil his order (to print wedding invitations to a gay marriage) and he listed other orders in the past he was unable to fulfil due to his religious beliefs.He then offered a handshake to the hairdresser who declined it.
Now in all objectivity who was the reasonable and non bigoted person here?
This is another one of your idiotic contributions. I don't think there is a single person with a functioning brain that will be convinced by the argument that if explain the grounds of your discrimination that that you are not actually discrimination.
To argue that if someone explains the source of their bigotry that that somehow makes then non-bigoted or even reasonable displays a frankly staggering level of stupidity
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 12:37:10 PM
According to law,or soon it will be,gays will be allowed to marry in the South.That will be their legal right.It is the legal right similarly of Christians to have beliefs and practice same.However one set of rights should not be allowed to override the other.
I'm afraid that you continue to fail to grasp an understanding of the debate in which you are involved. Freedom to believe and to congregate in belief is protected. As it should be. Freedom to act in line with your faith but against the law of the land is not protected. Nor should it ever be. If faith, without evidence and irrespective of what you believe, is allowed to excuse people from compliance with the law then we are doomed. Doomed in a real and earthly sense.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 12:37:10 PM
As to your analogy of the Protestant eatery,I'm no Petrocelli but I would have thought segregated seating,though perverse,is legally ok as long as all sects are served the same food at the same prices.
So yes or no? In your view will the catholic punters have been discriminated against? Simple stuff. If your belief extends to a faith in your own argument then you will provide the yes or no answer.
Tut tut,now we are so blinded by anti Christianity we cannot even recognise far less acknowledge that a business owner went out of his way to explain to a customer why he couldn't offer him a particular service (and by so doing showing the customer the utmost respect,a trait not usually associated with bigots),and offered him a handshake that was refused? :-\
I do not believe the Catholic punters would suffer discrimination by being placed in segregated seating as long as the quality of seating is the same for all other customers.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 12:58:57 PM
Tut tut,now we are so blinded by anti Christianity we cannot even recognise far less acknowledge that a business owner went out of his way to explain to a customer why he couldn't offer him a particular service (and by so doing showing the customer the utmost respect,a trait not usually associated with bigots),and offered him a handshake that was refused? :-\
Are you still arguing that if you explain the basis of your discrimination that that means you are not discriminating?
You are explaining the basis of your faith which does not allow you to fulfil the particular order in question (all previous orders have been fulfilled over the last 4 years) this is not discrimination in any way shape or form,as any reasonable person would concur.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 01:09:04 PM
You are explaining the basis of your faith which does not allow you to fulfil the particular order in question (all previous orders have been fulfilled over the last 4 years) this is not discrimination in any way shape or form,as any reasonable person would concur.
There are many problems with that but the key one is that faith based discrimination is no better than discrimination. Especially so when you cannot evidence your faith in any way.
You can only discriminate wholly against a person,not partially.That's why these cases initiated by gay lobbyists (and funded by all tax payers,many of whom are Christians by the way) will be laughed out of court.
The fact remains they were not discriminated against in any way due to being gay,they were denied specific services by suppliers because those services are contrary to the religious beliefs of suppliers,who quite happily supplied a vast range of other services to these same gay customers.
You might as well argue that businesses which don't open on a Sunday are being discriminatory against atheists.That's how daft this is.
Pope Francis' point about atheists seems to be in direct contradiction to Mark 16: 16:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
--Jebus
Quote from: T Fearon on March 06, 2015, 09:32:36 PM
No investigations in this case.Cant see how Ashers or Beulah can lose.No one was treated less favourably,as neither would produce a slogan endorsing gay marriage for anyone,homosexual or hetrosexual
But Tony, your whole argument is based on sin.
Either you are genuine in your beliefs that you are avoiding sin and acting on your Christian conscience, in your case by denying the gay couple a room, or you are simply bigoted.
Assuming your are acting on your Christian conscience, as I said before, why is it not sufficient to simply report the sin to your religious superiors and wash your hands of it?
'No investigations in this case' is not an argument. If the gay couple said it is ok because the Cardinal is investigating would you then give them the room?
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on March 07, 2015, 02:56:48 PM
Pope Francis' point about atheists seems to be in direct contradiction to Mark 16: 16:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
--Jebus
Matthew, Mark and Luke are not given the highest credence in the Catholic Catechism. That is reserved for both John, which was written after the others, and the writings of St. Paul.
For example the first 3 Gospels state that The Last Supper took place on the first day of Passover. John states that it was the last day of Passover.
The accounts of the women going to the tomb are all different. Who exactly went to the tomb is completely different in each of the Gospels. Who they met there and whether or not they went in, is also different. None explains properly why Mary Magdalene was there and why the resurrected Jesus appeared to her first.
This is pretty big stuff I would have thought and surely there should have been some consensus.
This is what two Gospels said about what the women did afterwards:
Matt. 28:8
8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.
Mark 16:8
8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. Also Catholics continue to worship Mary as a virgin. I am not going to get into whether or not she was a virgin for the birth of Jesus, but the Gospels say Jesus had brothers and sisters. Why ignore that?
You have to conclude that the authors of the Gospels had different views as they were human. This would be normal with any humans and any event. They may have employed poetic license or even had their own agendas. But either way, to accept their contradictory accounts as, well, 'Gospel', seems strange.
I'm not suggesting that there isn't conflict between gospels. Or that there aren't lots of conveniently ignored passages in the bible denouncing, e.g., loaning money for interest, or not obeying proper form when selling one's daughter. So I'd agree with the general claim that interpretation is required if one is going to use the bible as some kind of moral guide.
But if the claim is that the bible doesn't say that you have to believe in Jesus to get into heaven, then that is clearly false.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on March 07, 2015, 03:39:28 PM
I'm not suggesting that there isn't conflict between gospels. Or that there aren't lots of conveniently ignored passages in the bible denouncing, e.g., loaning money for interest, or not obeying proper form when selling one's daughter. So I'd agree with the general claim that interpretation is required if one is going to use the bible as some kind of moral guide.
But if the claim is that the bible doesn't say that you have to believe in Jesus to get into heaven, then that is clearly false.
If you mean literally, then obviously you are correct.
Muppet report it to whom? A gay couple are not part of any Church investigation? ::)
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 04:38:15 PM
Muppet report it to whom? A gay couple are not part of any Church investigation? ::)
To your religious superiors.
What gives you the power to judge that a sin MIGHT be committed, and intervene on that basis, when Sean Brady confirmed that a grave sin actually had been committed, but he merely reported it to his superiors? Why must you actively attempt to block the sinners, while it is ok for him to simply pass on the news?
And stop hiding behind
'it was an investigation'. The Bible doesn't absolve people because they are part of an investigation. I won't even bother asking you to point out where it does.
If you feel you have to act instantly on the suspicion that there is a risk a sin might be committed, then Brady certainly had to act having confirmed that a sins were actively being committed. You can't have it both ways.
What are you on? Brady was asked to investigate allegations of historic abuse?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 05:05:21 PM
What are you on? Brady was asked to investigate allegations of historic abuse?
We know that.
But also know he didn't share to urgency to prevent sin that you apparently do. We know he was happy to merely pass on the news, while you, hypothetically at least, are inclined to jump straight and intervene straight away. You wouldn't even bother with an investigation.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 05:05:21 PM
What are you on? Brady was asked to investigate allegations of historic abuse?
We know that *.
But also know he didn't share to urgency to prevent sin that you apparently do. We know he was happy to merely pass on the news, while you, hypothetically at least, are inclined to jump straight and intervene straight away. You wouldn't even bother with an investigation.
* (except the 'historic' bit - that is re-writing history to suit your agenda - the abuse was current at the time not historic)
Still haven't a clue what you're on about,but Brady was investigating historic allegations of abuse perpetrated by one so called priest,he was not in anyway providing sleeping facilities for that same priest and children,which is the only way Brady's case could be analogous to this.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 09:41:16 PM
Still haven't a clue what you're on about,but Brady was investigating historic allegations of abuse perpetrated by one so called priest,he was not in anyway providing sleeping facilities for that same priest and children,which is the only way Brady's case could be analogous to this.
Fistly, you are bearing false witness again. This time particuarly heinously. It was not historic abuse at the time, he interviewed an abused boy who had just made a complaint. The issue was as current as it could get.
Secondly, all along you have said this is about sin. You claim you would have to intervene to stop the sin happening 'under your roof'. You insist that you are entitled to do so because of your religious beliefs. You care not for legalities nor consequences. It is sin as far as you are concerned and it is not happening on your turf, or your watch.
Now compare that attitude with that of Sean Brady. He didn't intervene, the sin in question continued horrifically for a decade and a half, but he is absolved. His religious beliefs aren't examined nor his conscience. He was ok because he merely passed news of the sin along the chain of command.
Your stance is the complete opposite of his. You are intervening without investigation or without even knowing for sure if it is a sin or not. Brady knew it was a sin. But that didn't matter. As you so often said, he simply did his job. Sin didn't come into it.
Amazingly you are wrong to support what Brady did and still wrong with the gay couple. Child abuse is beyond evil. There are victims and they are innocent children. Any remotely intellient and humane person would have intervened to protect children. There are no victims of a gay couple staying in your B&B, other than your need to offend.
Ffs? Brady did not facilitate sin (which anyone providing a bed for a gay couple would be doing) and he reported it to his superiors.Neither he could prevent sin nor could any B&B owner who refused to let a room to a gay couple,prevent sin,as presumably they would find a room elsewhere.
Yours is the most contrived argument I've ever seen,and wrong on all counts
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 02:47:52 PM
You can only discriminate wholly against a person,not partially.
You are just inventing these things. Nobody with a working knowledge of how the law works could possibly agree with you. Actually, nobody with a working knowledge of how a dictionary works could agree with you.
Your arguments are shameful
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 10:42:17 PM
Ffs? Brady did not facilitate sin (which anyone providing a bed for a gay couple would be doing) and he reported it to his superiors.Neither he could prevent sin nor could any B&B owner who refused to let a room to a gay couple,prevent sin,as presumably they would find a room elsewhere.
Yours is the most contrived argument I've ever seen,and wrong on all counts
He did not intervene with Smyth, even though he had proof of sin. But he certainly did intervene with the victims when he got him to swear an oath of silence. He certainly could have have tried to prevent further sin by calling the Gárdaí. Or even telling the parents of the other children. When you think about it he could hardly have done less to stop the sin.
But the point your are missing, and I don't expect you to get, is that sin is merely a convenient argument for you. I raised Brady because I knew you would continue to argue for him, while ignoring the gigantic elephant in the room, i.e. sin. Sin doesn't come into it for Brady because if it did surely he had to try to stop it immediately. Just like you claim you have to. And saying they could get a room elsewhere is like saying Smyth could get a child elsewhere. Either you are against sin or not.
Brady wasn't concerned about sin. He was just doing his job for the Church. And you aren't concerned about sin either otherwise you would have to condemn that investigation for failing to nail Smyth for his sins. Instead you fully support Brady's (non) actions. You are also not bothered that the gay couple might 'sin' in the B&B down the road. A God that wants you to fight against 'sin' would be mighty impressed with you efforts there alright. Just as he would have been with Brady.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 10:42:17 PM
Ffs? Brady did not facilitate sin (which anyone providing a bed for a gay couple would be doing)
Yet you told me you'd sell a bed to a gay couple...
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 08, 2015, 12:38:46 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 07, 2015, 10:42:17 PM
Ffs? Brady did not facilitate sin (which anyone providing a bed for a gay couple would be doing)
Yet you told me you'd sell a bed to a gay couple...
Tony's deceits starting to catch up with him?
Catholics should be allowed to discriminate as they have to do so to prevent sin.
Sean Brady is a great lad.
Sean Brady did not report his evidence of serious wrong doing (that would certainly meet any definition of sin if you were in to that sort of thing) thereby allowing the "sin" to be repeated.
In Tony's world this all makes sense. But only in Tony's world.
Actually Brady did report unproven "allegations" of wrongdoing/sin to his superiors.No one can prevent sin.If I turn a gay couple away from my B&B then that's all I can do.I cannot stop a B&B owner down the road letting them have a room.However my conscience is clear.
Now there is far to many Romaphobes on this thread
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 08:22:37 AM
Actually Brady did report unproven "allegations" of wrongdoing/sin to his superiors.No one can prevent sin.If I turn a gay couple away from my B&B then that's all I can do.I cannot stop a B&B owner down the road letting them have a room.However my conscience is clear.
Now there is far to many Romaphobes on this thread
Tony if there is one message that comes out of the New Testament, among all the contradictions and different ideologies and mantras, the one single consistent message that Jesus preached was 'Love thy neighbour'.
If by judging, embarrassing & turning away your neighbour, on the suspicion that they may commit something that might be a sin, but you don't really know if it is or not, or whether they will do it or not, you believe that your conscience is clear and better still, that you are the great follower of Christ in all this, while all others are Romaphobes, then you will fit right in with the DUP.
Clearly the above view resembles the Anti-Christ view we used to hear from Paisley.
Love they Neighbour? Even if he is a paedophiles? I should love him and facilitate all his perversions?
Catch a grip.All main Christian Churches believe in Heaven and Hell,and the absolute need for repentance from sin.
Don't hold back muppet. Open goal.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 12:25:40 PM
Love they Neighbour? Even if he is a paedophiles? I should love him and facilitate all his perversions?
Catch a grip.All main Christian Churches believe in Heaven and Hell,and the absolute need for repentance from sin.
Open goal is right Hardy.
But I just want to capture the quote.
Tony has just had his Colonel Jessup moment:
"You're Damn Right I Ordered the Code Red!!!"
Quote from: muppet on March 08, 2015, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 12:25:40 PM
Love they Neighbour? Even if he is a paedophiles? I should love him and facilitate all his perversions?
Catch a grip.All main Christian Churches believe in Heaven and Hell,and the absolute need for repentance from sin.
Open goal is right Hardy.
But I just want to capture the quote.
Tony has just had his Colonel Jessup moment: "You're Damn Right I Ordered the Code Red!!!"
(http://susantrivers.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eebffae88340192aa6e1ab5970d-pi)
Gay ref shown red card over rainbow wristband
Referee for last night's Croker game banned by GAA from wearing symbol aimed at highlighting homophobia and his call for referendum 'Yes' vote
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/gay-ref-shown-red-card-over-rainbow-wristband-31049508.html
Quite right the GAA should not be used for political purposes.
Meanwhile the warped thinking of Hardy and Muppet is beyond belief.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 03:58:42 PM
Quite right the GAA should not be used for political purposes.
Meanwhile the warped thinking of Hardy and Muppet is beyond belief.
Yes, hate your neighbour is the way to go.
A Few Gay Men
Interior courtroom – the light is dull, the atmosphere heavy and mean. A couple of spectators flutter fans, some pull on their collars. Leaning with his knuckles on the table, back to the witness box, is a young lawyer (who looks remarkably like a young, non-insane Tom Cruise) staring at a glass of water. Condensation trickles down the side of the glass, as does a bead of sweat down the side of his aquiline face. He swallows, oblivious to a strange burbling sound that emanates from over his shoulder – the witness box, which could be accurately described as the epicentre of the heaviness and meanness in the chamber.
A man sits in the box, his not-insubstantial frame wedged into it and bulging slightly over the side. A pair of horn rimmed specs perch on his nose, a copy of the Belfast Telegraph with an unfinished Sudoku puzzle is grasped in his paws, and there is a cake in a box with some icing on it, which declares "Eat my Swiss roll if you oppose gay marriage".
But it is his clothes that catch the eye. He is wearing the uniform of the Papal Guards – it is unclear whether this is because he is a devout member of the Vatican military or because he thinks stripes are thinning. He pushes the shiny helmet up off his forehead and as he does, it is clear that he is the source of this strange sound, a kind of gargling incoherence, mixed with a soupcon of self satisfaction......
The witness - "So all I can do is live my life trying to avoid sin. Now I know what you're thinking – self righteous, moi?" A high-pitched giggle. "But when you are all frying in the eternal fires of hell, lamenting your sins and decadence for millennia without end, myself and God and the rest of the Saints, will be looking down and laughing and laughing, ha, ha, ha look at those sinners, especially those dirty atheists, and those homosexuals, flesh crisping off their bones, ha, ha, ha...."
He stops momentarily, his eyes, that had glazed over like a sex addict's in a brothel, go clear again. He resumes "But of course, I have no problems with homosexuals, none at all. Love the sinner, hate the sin, that's me. Indeed some of my best customers are homosexuals. Obviously though, as soon as I found out they were gay, I stopped serving them. Such is life, though, when you live by the Scriptures. Or is it the Gospels? I can never remember the difference.......I f**king hate atheists though. I knew your father, by the way...."
The lawyer, who had seemed almost catatonic, whilst the waves of verbosity washed around him, now lifts his head. "What did you say?" the words clenched through gritted teeth.
"Oh yes, I knew him way back when. I had actually won a Spot-the-ball competition in an edition of the Stonewall Times someone had left in the B'N'B – strange paper, but I found it very interesting – anyway, I digress. I had an Opus Dei conference booked in so I couldn't avail of the prize, which was two nights in the Bleeding Palms guesthouse and 2 tickets to a recording of Murphy's Micro Quiz 'Em. So of course, I gave them to your Dad. Imagine my horror when I realised he was bringing his fiancée, your mother, you know....the slut.
So we thought we'd have a little fun with him – I rang RTE and told them the situation, and they agreed to put up the phrase "Fornicators" on the computer screen every time the camera cut to them in the audience. Hilariously, the landlady of Bleeding Palms was a huge Mike Murphy fan, and when she saw the show she did what any Christian lady would do. She poured sulphuric acid over their clothes, burnt the mattress and put in the windscreen of their car with a rock. Oh, we laughed! And you know, I think he really respected her views in the end.
Of course, the landlady was a little bit out of order, as she was a woman, and by the Scriptures, she shouldn't really be expressing an opinion. But anyway, I must be going......"
He heaves his bulk out of the stand, adjusts the toy sword hanging around his belly, daintily adjusts the plume of his helmet and moves to walk out of the room.
The lawyer picks up the glass, and drinks the water, swallowing hard. As his throat works, his tie becomes loose, and under his crisp white shirt we can see a glimpse of a green and red jersey, strange attire though it is for a court room. "I haven't dismissed you" he almost whispers.
"What do you mean? How dare you?" squeals the witness.
"Sit back down. I haven't dismissed you."
The witness huffs back to the box, a flurry of stripes, feathers and high dudgeon. "I have to be getting back.."
"To your B'N'B?"
"Yes, as you well know."
"This is the Fearon's House of Moral Rectitude in Portadown?"
"Yes. I've answered all this already."
"And you refused an elderly gay couple a room last year, because, in your words, you didn't want to facilitate a sin?"
"Yes, as is my right as a Christian."
"Yet on the same evening, you facilitated an unmarried couple, a pair of priests and an investment banker?"
"And what would be your problem with that? They were not sinners, as far as I know, and I certainly didn't get any indication the next morning after I sniffed their mattresses. All I'm trying to do is not facilitate sin, as it says in the Scriptures!"
"And you also hosted Cardinal Sean Brady, a man whose inaction allowed decades of abuse to be perpetrated on a generation of children."
"A Prince of the Church and the walking human embodiment of a My Little Pony, I won't have a word said against him."
"What's the first line of the Bible?"
"What?"
"What's the first line of the Bible?"
"I'm not really into the minutiae of the details of the words of the Bible, I'm more about finding a deep expression of the Holy Spirit inside myself, allied with my own instinct about human nature and ..."
"WHAT IS THE FIRST LINE OF THE BIBLE????"
"YOU WANT ANSWERS???"
"I WANT THE TRUTH!!"
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! The truth is I wake up every morning and eat my breakfast with spitting distance of a teeming horde of atheists and sodomites who want to tear me apart. And then I have to listen to bleeding heart liberals like yourself and the Pope telling me to love my neighbour. Love my neighbour? LOVE MY NEIGHBOUR??? HAVE YOU EVEN BEEN TO PORTADOWN???
The only thing standing between the entire human race and the Anti Christ is the door of my B'N'B. And the truth is, you want me on that door, you need me on that door, and I will not let myself be besmirched by those who prosper under the Godly shield which I provide for them."
The court has fallen silent. The witness, mopping his brow, moves out of the stand again, muttering something about a Trappist table quiz he has to get to.
The lawyer motions with his hand "Bailiffs – take him down."
The witness is taken away.
The lawyers stands in the room, a Mayo jersey clearly visible under his drenched white shirt.
"Now you're dismissed."
So you would love Brendan Smyth? And no doubt Hardy adores Sean Brady ,even though he once deemed him to be a "miserable bastard?"
Can people not differentiate between the generic teachings of Jesus (when he said Love thy Neighbour,he was talking generically about your fellow man and woman,not every odious individual),or like the fundamentalists do you interpret everything literally?
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2015, 05:55:25 PM
A Few Gay Men
Interior courtroom – the light is dull, the atmosphere heavy and mean. A couple of spectators flutter fans, some pull on their collars. Leaning with his knuckles on the table, back to the witness box, is a young lawyer (who looks remarkably like a young, non-insane Tom Cruise) staring at a glass of water. Condensation trickles down the side of the glass, as does a bead of sweat down the side of his aquiline face. He swallows, oblivious to a strange burbling sound that emanates from over his shoulder – the witness box, which could be accurately described as the epicentre of the heaviness and meanness in the chamber.
A man sits in the box, his not-insubstantial frame wedged into it and bulging slightly over the side. A pair of horn rimmed specs perch on his nose, a copy of the Belfast Telegraph with an unfinished Sudoku puzzle is grasped in his paws, and there is a cake in a box with some icing on it, which declares "Eat my Swiss roll if you oppose gay marriage".
But it is his clothes that catch the eye. He is wearing the uniform of the Papal Guards – it is unclear whether this is because he is a devout member of the Vatican military or because he thinks stripes are thinning. He pushes the shiny helmet up off his forehead and as he does, it is clear that he is the source of this strange sound, a kind of gargling incoherence, mixed with a soupcon of self satisfaction......
The witness - "So all I can do is live my life trying to avoid sin. Now I know what you're thinking – self righteous, moi?" A high-pitched giggle. "But when you are all frying in the eternal fires of hell, lamenting your sins and decadence for millennia without end, myself and God and the rest of the Saints, will be looking down and laughing and laughing, ha, ha, ha look at those sinners, especially those dirty atheists, and those homosexuals, flesh crisping off their bones, ha, ha, ha...."
He stops momentarily, his eyes, that had glazed over like a sex addict's in a brothel, go clear again. He resumes "But of course, I have no problems with homosexuals, none at all. Love the sinner, hate the sin, that's me. Indeed some of my best customers are homosexuals. Obviously though, as soon as I found out they were gay, I stopped serving them. Such is life, though, when you live by the Scriptures. Or is it the Gospels? I can never remember the difference.......I f**king hate atheists though. I knew your father, by the way...."
The lawyer, who had seemed almost catatonic, whilst the waves of verbosity washed around him, now lifts his head. "What did you say?" the words clenched through gritted teeth.
"Oh yes, I knew him way back when. I had actually won a Spot-the-ball competition in an edition of the Stonewall Times someone had left in the B'N'B – strange paper, but I found it very interesting – anyway, I digress. I had an Opus Dei conference booked in so I couldn't avail of the prize, which was two nights in the Bleeding Palms guesthouse and 2 tickets to a recording of Murphy's Micro Quiz 'Em. So of course, I gave them to your Dad. Imagine my horror when I realised he was bringing his fiancée, your mother, you know....the slut.
So we thought we'd have a little fun with him – I rang RTE and told them the situation, and they agreed to put up the phrase "Fornicators" on the computer screen every time the camera cut to them in the audience. Hilariously, the landlady of Bleeding Palms was a huge Mike Murphy fan, and when she saw the show she did what any Christian lady would do. She poured sulphuric acid over their clothes, burnt the mattress and put in the windscreen of their car with a rock. Oh, we laughed! And you know, I think he really respected her views in the end.
Of course, the landlady was a little bit out of order, as she was a woman, and by the Scriptures, she shouldn't really be expressing an opinion. But anyway, I must be going......"
He heaves his bulk out of the stand, adjusts the toy sword hanging around his belly, daintily adjusts the plume of his helmet and moves to walk out of the room.
The lawyer picks up the glass, and drinks the water, swallowing hard. As his throat works, his tie becomes loose, and under his crisp white shirt we can see a glimpse of a green and red jersey, strange attire though it is for a court room. "I haven't dismissed you" he almost whispers.
"What do you mean? How dare you?" squeals the witness.
"Sit back down. I haven't dismissed you."
The witness huffs back to the box, a flurry of stripes, feathers and high dudgeon. "I have to be getting back.."
"To your B'N'B?"
"Yes, as you well know."
"This is the Fearon's House of Moral Rectitude in Portadown?"
"Yes. I've answered all this already."
"And you refused an elderly gay couple a room last year, because, in your words, you didn't want to facilitate a sin?"
"Yes, as is my right as a Christian."
"Yet on the same evening, you facilitated an unmarried couple, a pair of priests and an investment banker?"
"And what would be your problem with that? They were not sinners, as far as I know, and I certainly didn't get any indication the next morning after I sniffed their mattresses. All I'm trying to do is not facilitate sin, as it says in the Scriptures!"
"And you also hosted Cardinal Sean Brady, a man whose inaction allowed decades of abuse to be perpetrated on a generation of children."
"A Prince of the Church and the walking human embodiment of a My Little Pony, I won't have a word said against him."
"What's the first line of the Bible?"
"What?"
"What's the first line of the Bible?"
"I'm not really into the minutiae of the details of the words of the Bible, I'm more about finding a deep expression of the Holy Spirit inside myself, allied with my own instinct about human nature and ..."
"WHAT IS THE FIRST LINE OF THE BIBLE????"
"YOU WANT ANSWERS???"
"I WANT THE TRUTH!!"
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! The truth is I wake up every morning and eat my breakfast with spitting distance of a teeming horde of atheists and sodomites who want to tear me apart. And then I have to listen to bleeding heart liberals like yourself and the Pope telling me to love my neighbour. Love my neighbour? LOVE MY NEIGHBOUR??? HAVE YOU EVEN BEEN TO PORTADOWN???
The only thing standing between the entire human race and the Anti Christ is the door of my B'N'B. And the truth is, you want me on that door, you need me on that door, and I will not let myself be besmirched by those who prosper under the Godly shield which I provide for them."
The court has fallen silent. The witness, mopping his brow, moves out of the stand again, muttering something about a Trappist table quiz he has to get to.
The lawyer motions with his hand "Bailiffs – take him down."
The witness is taken away.
The lawyers stands in the room, a Mayo jersey clearly visible under his drenched white shirt.
"Now you're dismissed."
Brilliant.
There were tears streaming down my eyes, so much that I read this:
The lawyer motions with his hand "Bailiffs – take him down.", as "Biffos - take him down" in error.
Biffos is better Muppet.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
So you would love Brendan Smyth? And no doubt Hardy adores Sean Brady ,even though he once deemed him to be a "miserable b**tard?"
Can people not differentiate between the generic teachings of Jesus (when he said Love thy Neighbour,he was talking generically about your fellow man and woman,not every odious individual),or like the fundamentalists do you interpret everything literally?
A new line there for you easytiger: Love thy neighbour, but not every odious individual!
Some of you really need to do an Alpha course.The knowledge of the Bible and Religion in general is appalling
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 06:24:24 PM
Some of you really need to do an Alpha course.The knowledge of the Bible and Religion in general is appalling
Read the Bible! But not every odious verse?
So did/do you love Brendan Smyth?
Of course anyone with half a brain knows Jesus' command to Love thy Neighbour was an instruction as to how to treat others in general,and not a command to love and respect every single person regardless of their deeds and disposition
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 09:24:44 PM
Of course anyone with half a brain knows Jesus' command to Love thy Neighbour was an instruction as to how to treat others in general,and not a command to love and respect every single person regardless of their deeds and disposition
What? So treat people generally with respect except the gays and certain other people I don't like??
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 12:25:40 PM
Love they Neighbour? Even if he is a paedophiles? I should love him and facilitate all his perversions?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 09:09:46 PM
So did/do you love Brendan Smyth?
Stop the sleazy smearing. Easytiger called out this carry on earlier in the thread. Casually pulling paedophiles into your defence of your homophobia is the kind of nasty lie that gets gay people beaten up or worse. Low.
Point out one instance on this thread where I've demonstrated any form of homophobia.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 10:27:42 PM
As the likelihood of the gay couple having sex is much greater than a single person pleasuring himself I'd let a room to a single person but not to a gay couple.
Comedy gold on these topics at times. Hard to know how many WUM are on the go and who is trying to win up who.
Quote from: Bingo on March 09, 2015, 09:40:09 AM
Comedy gold on these topics at times. Hard to know how many WUM are on the go and who is trying to win up who.
I normally question why people bother with Fearon, but this thread has been a hoot.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 07:22:59 AM
Point out one instance on this thread where I've demonstrated any form of homophobia.
I don't know why I bother. Funniest line of the thread so far. My hats off to you Mr. Fearon, you are a comedy icon.
Quote from: deiseach on March 09, 2015, 09:51:39 AM
Quote from: Bingo on March 09, 2015, 09:40:09 AM
Comedy gold on these topics at times. Hard to know how many WUM are on the go and who is trying to win up who.
I normally question why people bother with Fearon, but this thread has been a hoot.
Yeah, just when you think its dying it will come back with a new turn that leads to another 5/6 pages of stuff that wouldn't look out of place in Monty Python.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
So you would love Brendan Smyth? And no doubt Hardy adores Sean Brady ,even though he once deemed him to be a "miserable b**tard?"
Can people not differentiate between the generic teachings of Jesus (when he said Love thy Neighbour,he was talking generically about your fellow man and woman,not every odious individual),or like the fundamentalists do you interpret everything literally?
Let's put it this way, Tony,say I came across Brendan Smyth and Sean Brady drowning in a pot of the devil's piss as I walked along the road of life.
Now, suppose I had the chance to save one of them before he submerged for the third and final time, so it appears that I have a hard choice to make.
I know that both are/were obnoxious bastards who truly deserve to spend eternity in the devil's keeping.
So which one should I save?
Not a hard choice at all. I'd grab Smyth by the hair and drag him out, nice and slow and then give him a few roots up the rock 'n' roll before sending him on his way to Siberia or maybe Roscommon.
As for Seanie, I'd give him the two-fingered salute that he gave to all poor children that Smyth abused, both before and after that infamous "interview."
Smyth was a deranged individual who wasn't in full control of his emotions.
Brady was a devious individual who knew damn well what he was doing and was prepared to go to great lengths to protect the church's interests, as he saw them.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 09, 2015, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
So you would love Brendan Smyth? And no doubt Hardy adores Sean Brady ,even though he once deemed him to be a "miserable b**tard?"
Can people not differentiate between the generic teachings of Jesus (when he said Love thy Neighbour,he was talking generically about your fellow man and woman,not every odious individual),or like the fundamentalists do you interpret everything literally?
Let's put it this way, Tony,say I came across Brendan Smyth and Sean Brady drowning in a pot of the devil's piss as I walked along the road of life.
Now, suppose I had the chance to save one of them before he submerged for the third and final time, so it appears that I have a hard choice to make.
I know that both are/were obnoxious b**tards who truly deserve to spend eternity in the devil's keeping.
So which one should I save?
Not a hard choice at all. I'd grab Smyth by the hair and drag him out, nice and slow and then give him a few roots up the rock 'n' roll before sending him on his way to Siberia or maybe Roscommon.
As for Seanie, I'd give him the two-fingered salute that he gave to all poor children that Smyth abused, both before and after that infamous "interview."
Smyth was a deranged individual who wasn't in full control of his emotions.
Brady was a devious individual who knew damn well what he was doing and was prepared to go to great lengths to protect the church's interests, as he saw them.
Would he not have enjoyed that!?
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 09, 2015, 01:32:57 PM
Let's put it this way, Tony,say I came across Brendan Smyth and Sean Brady
possible they may have enjoyed this more...
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 09, 2015, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
So you would love Brendan Smyth? And no doubt Hardy adores Sean Brady ,even though he once deemed him to be a "miserable b**tard?"
Can people not differentiate between the generic teachings of Jesus (when he said Love thy Neighbour,he was talking generically about your fellow man and woman,not every odious individual),or like the fundamentalists do you interpret everything literally?
Let's put it this way, Tony,say I came across Brendan Smyth and Sean Brady drowning in a pot of the devil's piss as I walked along the road of life.
Now, suppose I had the chance to save one of them before he submerged for the third and final time, so it appears that I have a hard choice to make.
I know that both are/were obnoxious b**tards who truly deserve to spend eternity in the devil's keeping.
So which one should I save?
Not a hard choice at all. I'd grab Smyth by the hair and drag him out, nice and slow and then give him a few roots up the rock 'n' roll before sending him on his way to Siberia or maybe Roscommon.
As for Seanie, I'd give him the two-fingered salute that he gave to all poor children that Smyth abused, both before and after that infamous "interview."
Smyth was a deranged individual who wasn't in full control of his emotions.
Brady was a devious individual who knew damn well what he was doing and was prepared to go to great lengths to protect the church's interests, as he saw them.
Well put, Lar. And the correct decision.
Love thy neighbour, except the odious ones.
I am beginning to like this philosophy. Can I love only the people I like, or find attractive, or are gamey, or maybe all three? Presumably if you don't have to love certain people, you can hate them? This would be a great relief I can assure you. For example I won't feel bad cursing the locals all the way across Roscommon on the way home anymore.
I am now curious to what your interpretation of the 10 Commandants are.
Here is the King James version:
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV)
1 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 "You shall not murder.
7 "You shall not commit adultery.
8 "You shall not steal.
9 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."
So what is the Tony Fearon version? I'll hazard a guess at a couple:
1 I am the Lord your God, you shall have no others Gods, except Cardinals, and Bishops, and Armagh, and Spurs, and Celtic.
2
3
4
5
6 You shall not murder, unless the bastard deserves it.
7
8
9
10
Quote from: Hardy on March 09, 2015, 02:10:47 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 09, 2015, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
So you would love Brendan Smyth? And no doubt Hardy adores Sean Brady ,even though he once deemed him to be a "miserable b**tard?"
Can people not differentiate between the generic teachings of Jesus (when he said Love thy Neighbour,he was talking generically about your fellow man and woman,not every odious individual),or like the fundamentalists do you interpret everything literally?
Let's put it this way, Tony,say I came across Brendan Smyth and Sean Brady drowning in a pot of the devil's piss as I walked along the road of life.
Now, suppose I had the chance to save one of them before he submerged for the third and final time, so it appears that I have a hard choice to make.
I know that both are/were obnoxious b**tards who truly deserve to spend eternity in the devil's keeping.
So which one should I save?
Not a hard choice at all. I'd grab Smyth by the hair and drag him out, nice and slow and then give him a few roots up the rock 'n' roll before sending him on his way to Siberia or maybe Roscommon.
As for Seanie, I'd give him the two-fingered salute that he gave to all poor children that Smyth abused, both before and after that infamous "interview."
Smyth was a deranged individual who wasn't in full control of his emotions.
Brady was a devious individual who knew damn well what he was doing and was prepared to go to great lengths to protect the church's interests, as he saw them.
Well put, Lar. And the correct decision.
I disagree. You are applying 20th century attitudes and transparency to a time when in those in authority were never challenged and no exceptions. Whistle blowing was never an option. Sean Brady is easy target.
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 09, 2015, 02:10:47 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 09, 2015, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
So you would love Brendan Smyth? And no doubt Hardy adores Sean Brady ,even though he once deemed him to be a "miserable b**tard?"
Can people not differentiate between the generic teachings of Jesus (when he said Love thy Neighbour,he was talking generically about your fellow man and woman,not every odious individual),or like the fundamentalists do you interpret everything literally?
Let's put it this way, Tony,say I came across Brendan Smyth and Sean Brady drowning in a pot of the devil's piss as I walked along the road of life.
Now, suppose I had the chance to save one of them before he submerged for the third and final time, so it appears that I have a hard choice to make.
I know that both are/were obnoxious b**tards who truly deserve to spend eternity in the devil's keeping.
So which one should I save?
Not a hard choice at all. I'd grab Smyth by the hair and drag him out, nice and slow and then give him a few roots up the rock 'n' roll before sending him on his way to Siberia or maybe Roscommon.
As for Seanie, I'd give him the two-fingered salute that he gave to all poor children that Smyth abused, both before and after that infamous "interview."
Smyth was a deranged individual who wasn't in full control of his emotions.
Brady was a devious individual who knew damn well what he was doing and was prepared to go to great lengths to protect the church's interests, as he saw them.
Well put, Lar. And the correct decision.
I disagree. You are applying 20th century attitudes and transparency to a time when in those in authority were never challenged and no exceptions. Whistle blowing was never an option. Sean Brady is easy target.
The 14 year old managed it.
Still waiting for an example of my alleged homophobia
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 06:11:26 PM
Still waiting for an example of my alleged homophobia
Do you understand that to be homophobic is to be prejudiced against homosexual people?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homophobic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homophobic)
Adj. 1. homophobic - prejudiced against homosexual peopleYou have demonstrated time and time again on this thread that you are happy to discriminate against homosexuals. What we have been debating is why.
I am not in favour of any discrimination against anyone.I would not permit my house to be used for what I consider to be any sinful purposes committed by anyone of any sexual preference.Please stop bearing false witness against me
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 06:24:25 PM
I am not in favour of any discrimination against anyone.I would not permit my house to be used for what I consider to be any sinful purposes committed by anyone of any sexual preference.Please stop bearing false witness against me
If the above is referring to your B&B or any other hypothetical business, it is discrimination Tony. It is against the law.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 08:03:44 PM
I would (and do) treat gay people the same way as I treat everyone else.But I disapprove of the lifestyle and consider that they already have sufficient rights without demeaning marriage and elevating an unconventional partnership to the level of a normal one.
The above is a demonstration of your prejudice against homosexuals.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 24, 2015, 11:01:18 PM
If a gay couple wanted to rent a room to clearly spend a night in that room as a normal heterosexual married couple,yes I believe the owner of a B&B should have a right to refuse their custom.
The above further demonstrates your prejudice and your willingness to discriminate against homosexuals.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 25, 2015, 06:11:35 AM
In all cases you are simply preventing sinful activity taking place under your roof or not facilitating such activity.You are not discriminating against the potential customers themselves.
Not only is this more evidence of prejudice and willingness to discriminate, it is also completely delusional.
No it's not.There are many things I disapprove of,that doesn't indicate any discrimination whatsoever,so once again Stop bearing false witness
Tony,
it may be approaching the time where you possibly consider that you may have to concede a little here.
it's been a good run, but even big Pat Jennings had to hang the gloves up at some point...
HB
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 07:14:51 PM
No it's not.There are many things I disapprove of,that doesn't indicate any discrimination whatsoever,so once again Stop bearing false witness
I think the biggest difficulty you have is with the english language.
You alone on this thread think treating people differently because they are homosexual, is somehow not discrimination. Everyone else is debating why you would discriminate, not whether or not it is discrimination.
People are treated differently in many aspects of life.Thats why men and women generally wear different clothes and have different toilets etc.
It all boils down to why they're treated differently.As I said I'd have no problem letting out a single room to an individual member of the gay community,which proves I'm non discriminatory.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 08:25:08 PM
People are treated differently in many aspects of life.Thats why men and women generally wear different clothes and have different toilets etc.
It all boils down to why they're treated differently.As I said I'd have no problem letting out a single room to an individual member of the gay community,which proves I'm non discriminatory.
You wouldn't give the room to a gay couple and you would to a straight couple. That is discriminating against that gay couple no matter how deluded you are.
Quote from: muppet on March 09, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
I disagree. You are applying 20th century attitudes and transparency to a time when in those in authority were never challenged and no exceptions. Whistle blowing was never an option. Sean Brady is easy target.
The 14 year old managed it.
I went to an all boys school. There was always talk about one priest in particular who visited the dormitories at night.
Should I be hanging my head in shame that I didnt report it to the RUC?
I would not let a room to an unmarried hetrosexual couple either
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 09, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
I disagree. You are applying 20th century attitudes and transparency to a time when in those in authority were never challenged and no exceptions. Whistle blowing was never an option. Sean Brady is easy target.
The 14 year old managed it.
I went to an all boys school. There was always talk about one priest in particular who visited the dormitories at night.
Should I be hanging my head in shame that I didnt report it to the RUC?
Did you head an investigation into it and get the victims to swear an illegal oath of silence? If so, hang your head in shame.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
So you would love Brendan Smyth?
You are the one that loves Brendan Smyth. You have told us dozens of times that you do so don't start denying it now.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 08, 2015, 05:57:12 PM
Can people not differentiate between the generic teachings of Jesus (when he said Love thy Neighbour,he was talking generically about your fellow man and woman,not every odious individual),or like the fundamentalists do you interpret everything literally?
Love thy neighbour now does not mean love thy neighbour. The bible is not to be taken literally. Now given all that where is your biblically based problems with homosexuality?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 07:22:59 AM
Point out one instance on this thread where I've demonstrated any form of homophobia.
You object to the lifestyle of homosexuals. You are a homophobe. You have displayed your homophobia on this thread.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 06:11:26 PM
Still waiting for an example of my alleged homophobia
no you're not
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 08:25:08 PM
People are treated differently in many aspects of life.Thats why men and women generally wear different clothes and have different toilets etc.
It all boils down to why they're treated differently.As I said I'd have no problem letting out a single room to an individual member of the gay community,which proves I'm non discriminatory.
So a married gay couple. Would you refuse them a room?
Yes.
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 09, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
I disagree. You are applying 20th century attitudes and transparency to a time when in those in authority were never challenged and no exceptions. Whistle blowing was never an option. Sean Brady is easy target.
The 14 year old managed it.
I went to an all boys school. There was always talk about one priest in particular who visited the dormitories at night.
Should I be hanging my head in shame that I didnt report it to the RUC?
Report what?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 09:20:27 PM
I would not let a room to an unmarried hetrosexual couple either
Would you ask for a marriage cert and ID?
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 09, 2015, 10:41:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 09:20:27 PM
I would not let a room to an unmarried hetrosexual couple either
Would you ask for a marriage cert and ID?
Prejudice is like a lie. It gets harder and harder to keep it going.
When you understand what prejudice is,we can debate😀
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 10:52:25 PM
When you understand what prejudice is,we can debate😀
I would concede that you are the recognised expert on prejudice on this board.
Quote from: Hardy on March 09, 2015, 10:06:03 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 09, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
I disagree. You are applying 20th century attitudes and transparency to a time when in those in authority were never challenged and no exceptions. Whistle blowing was never an option. Sean Brady is easy target.
The 14 year old managed it.
I went to an all boys school. There was always talk about one priest in particular who visited the dormitories at night.
Should I be hanging my head in shame that I didnt report it to the RUC?
Report what?
That abuse was happening in my secondary school, but I didnt understand it at the time. However when I appreciate the gravity, should I still report the priest even if he is now dead?
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 11:36:40 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 09, 2015, 10:06:03 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 09:09:05 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 09, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 09, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
I disagree. You are applying 20th century attitudes and transparency to a time when in those in authority were never challenged and no exceptions. Whistle blowing was never an option. Sean Brady is easy target.
The 14 year old managed it.
I went to an all boys school. There was always talk about one priest in particular who visited the dormitories at night.
Should I be hanging my head in shame that I didnt report it to the RUC?
Report what?
That abuse was happening in my secondary school, but I didnt understand it at the time. However when I appreciate the gravity, should I still report the priest even if he is now dead?
Stop with the silly questions, Orior and I know you didn't start it, but can we also stop bringing up child abuse in a discussion about homophobia?
You don't need me or anyone else to inform your conscience. The last time you posted that story here you described it as "rumours" about a priest who was "asking boys about what they do with their girlfriends" and "wandering through the dormitories at night". Do you really see an equivalence between that and Brady's facilitation of child rape?
Even if you do (and you don't, I hope) you know the answer to your rhetorical questions. They're facile. You were a child. You had no responsibility then. If you think there's a possibility that this is still going on now, you know your responsibilities.
Quote from: Hardy on March 10, 2015, 09:35:20 AM
Stop with the silly questions, Orior and I know you didn't start it, but can we also stop bringing up child abuse in a discussion about homophobia?
You don't need me or anyone else to inform your conscience. The last time you posted that story here you described it as "rumours" about a priest who was "asking boys about what they do with their girlfriends" and "wandering through the dormitories at night". Do you really see an equivalence between that and Brady's facilitation of child rape?
Even if you do (and you don't, I hope) you know the answer to your rhetorical questions. They're facile. You were a child. You had no responsibility then. If you think there's a possibility that this is still going on now, you know your responsibilities.
Fair enough, and my complements on your memory.
I still believe that the hounding of Sean Brady is harsh and in the absence of anyone else he has become a scapegoat. The real culprit is the guy who ordered Brady to deal with Smyth and silence his victims.
Orior,don't waste your time.Brady is an ideal target for the anti Catholic fascists,the more senior the church figure they can demonise the happier they are. :(
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 05:53:02 PM
Prior,don't waste your time.Brady is an ideal target for the anti Catholic fascists,the more senior the church figure they can demonise the happier they are.
Yes Tony, anyone who dares criticise a man who silenced the victims of child sex abuse is a fascist.
Silence them? Did he seal up their lips? Did he prevent their parents from delving into why their young children might have been summonsed to a meeting with clergy? Or did he do his bidding in a bureaucratic organisation by carry out an investigation and report his findings accurately to his superiors,who wielded real power and influence in the Church at that time?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 05:59:35 PM
Silence them? Did he seal up their lips? Did he prevent their parents from delving into why their young children might have been summonsed to a meeting with clergy? Or did he do his bidding in a bureaucratic organisation by carry out an investigation and report his findings accurately to his superiors,who wielded real power and influence in the Church at that time?
Yes he did! Do you understand what an oath is?
He broke the law doing it as well.
If he broke the law why isn't he charged? An oath has never been broken of course.Perjury doesn't exist ::)
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 06:07:17 PM
If he broke the law why isn't he charged? An oath has never been broken of course.Perjury doesn't exist ::)
Let's examine this idiotic argument for the craic.
"
If he broke the law why isn't he charged?" - Probably because of his standing of the Church and/or the statue of limitations or both. But it was against the law at the time. He should at the very least be interviewed for his role, if any, in prolonging Smyth's abuse.
"
An oath has never been broken of course." - This is a crass sarcastic attempt to play down the disgusting silencing of victims. These boys were victims of child sex abuse and you are blaming them for not breaking an illegal oath, which the church forced them into signing. (Sometimes it is really incredible how low you will go Tony).
"
Perjury doesn't exist" - So lying is ok then? I must add that to Tony's flexible religion 10 Commandments.
Without rehashing old arguments which I've won previously ,I believe Brady's judgement was poor,his Superiors were guilty of prioritising the reputation of the church ahead of victims (which they acknowledge and have apologised for) but the parents bear a huge responsibility too for their failings which if repeated nowadays would attract attention of social services.
I don't support perjury,just saying it happens frequently
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 06:25:30 PM
Without rehashing old arguments which I've won previously ,I believe Brady's judgement was poor,his Superiors were guilty of prioritising the reputation of the church ahead of victims (which they acknowledge and have apologised for) but the parents bear a huge responsibility too for their failings which if repeated nowadays would attract attention of social services.
I don't support perjury,just saying it happens frequently
Here we have children sexually abused by men of the church, this is covered up by the church and to this day the church level of co-operation has been no more than the barest minimum, but Tony Fearon blames the victims' parents.
It is hard to imagine a single poster that undermines the Catholic Church on these boards more than you. Bravo.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 06:25:30 PM
Without rehashing old arguments which I've won previously ,I believe Brady's judgement was poor,his Superiors were guilty of prioritising the reputation of the church ahead of victims (which they acknowledge and have apologised for) but the parents bear a huge responsibility too for their failings which if repeated nowadays would attract attention of social services.
I don't support perjury,just saying it happens frequently
In your own head.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 09:20:27 PM
I would not let a room to an unmarried hetrosexual couple either
oh look a unicorn!
is it a non profit you're running?
No just a moral upright business
Or did you mean, 'Not just, amoral/immoral, uptight'?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 06:44:13 PM
No just a moral upright business
Would you allow priests silence victims of child abuse there?
You can only silence someone by murdering them.I certainly wouldn't be an advocate of that. Would you drive a young son or daughter to a meeting with clergy without making your business to find out what its all about.Would you consent to the meeting proceeding without you being present to support your young children?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 07:07:35 PM
You can only silence someone by murdering them.I certainly wouldn't be an advocate of that. Would you drive a young son or daughter to a meeting with clergy without making your business to find out what its all about.Would you consent to the meeting proceeding without you being present to support your young children?
You get more idiotic with age.
The children we victims because a priest abused his position.
The children were further victimised because the church prioritised its reputable over the suffering of innocent children.
Brady said in 2009: "If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign."
In 2010 when we all found out that he had been precisely in that position, he ignored his own advice and didn't resign.
But you blame the parents.
Yawn.What responsible parent would drive their young children to a meeting with any group of adults (an extraordinary scenario) without finding out what its purpose was,what if any trouble their children were in etc.Its called gross negligence nowadays
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 07:20:17 PM
Yawn.What responsible parent would drive their young children to a meeting with any group of adults (an extraordinary scenario) without finding out what its purpose was,what if any trouble their children were in etc.Its called gross negligence nowadays
No matter how hard you try, nothing in your argument excuses the child abuse cover up by the church, nor anyone who took part in silencing the victims.
For the record, Brendan Boland's father was outside the meeting. This was at the request of the priests. He knew what had happened his son, he had vomited in the garden when he was told. Brady promised him that Smyth wouldn't touch another child. That was Boland's father's concern at that stage, we now know it certainly wasn't Brady's.
The other child's parents knew nothing. They probably thought he had been caught smoking. That boy was also sworn to secrecy, by Brady and Smyth abused the boy's cousins. The parents may not know even now.
You blind defence of Brady is pretty sickening, and that is without your truly evil attempts to deflect the blame onto the parents.
If Mr Bolands father knew,why didn't he go to the Guards? You blame Brady for not going to the Guards,then logic dictates you must also blame Mr Boland.I have never denied the Church failed those boys shamefully,I dispute Sean Brady being held utterly responsible for this failure though.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 08:15:22 PM
If Mr Bolands father knew,why didn't he go to the Guards? You blame Brady for not going to the Guards,then logic dictates you must also blame Mr Boland.I have never denied the Church failed those boys shamefully,I dispute Sean Brady being held utterly responsible for this failure though.
It was the Bolands that went to the Gárdaí you fool. I told you that before but you keep ignoring it.
That is what blew it all open. They waited a few years, but when they found out that Smyth had abused many more children after Brendan and that Brady's promise to them was complete bullshit, they went to the Gárdaí. The problem is that no one could remember who one of the priests (i.e. Brady) was in the investigation. The Church then disgracefully denied Boland his civil right to access the records of the investigation into his abuse, from when he asked for them around 1997 (I think) until they released them in 2010. When the church finally released the documents, everything became far, far clearer. This despite that Brady had changed his name from John Brady to Sean Brady.
The questions asked by the two priests were, to be frank, disgusting. Even now reading the questions it is obvious they attempted to lead the boy into blaming himself for the abuse. They asked him had he mentioned it in confessions. Think about that. Why would you mention you being abused in a 'confession'? Was it his sin? Boland named 5 other children he thought were also being abused by Smyth. They then made Boland sign the oath of secrecy. Brady met one of the named children, to corroborate Boland's evidence, and then silenced him with an oath. Brady never informed any of the parents. Some of them suffered more abuse along with relatives of theirs.
The church behaved despicably in this case. Their apology rings very hollow given they didn't remotely co-operate until 2010. Anyone here suggesting Brady was somehow a victim of circumstance by merely following orders is completely insane.
Anyone who blames the parents is positively evil, imho. Even Brady didn't do that.
So if he delayed for years then by your logic he is equally as guilty of Brady in not stopping Smyth's litany of terror
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 08:36:03 PM
So if he delayed for years then by your logic he is equally as guilty of Brady in not stopping Smyth's litany of terror
No tony. Brady was in charge. He was the investigator. He had the evidence. He had names of other vulnerable children. Boland's Dad wasn't let into the room. Brady promised Boland's Dad that Smyth would hurt no more children. Boland's Dad believed him. This may shock you but there are people in Ireland who listened to and trusted the church. There are people in Ireland who held people like Sean Brady in high esteem. You mightn't know any of them but I can assure you they existed.
There is no comparison between the role of Brady and Boland's Dad and it is world class hypocrisy to defend Brady's role, while blaming a victims father. In fact it it way beyond hypocrisy, it is pure evil.
I said mistakes were made by everyone,and the parents must take their share of the blame.
Brady was an anonymous junior priest in the mid 70s.He has been blamed for not doing enough to stop Smyth,if Mr Boland's father knew,he had the exact same knowledge as Brady at the same time,and therefore in retrospect the exact same responsibility to follow up and ensure Smyth was stopped.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 09:46:58 PM
I said mistakes were made by everyone,and the parents must take their share of the blame.
Brady was an anonymous junior priest in the mid 70s.He has been blamed for not doing enough to stop Smyth,if Mr Boland's father knew,he had the exact same knowledge as Brady at the same time,and therefore in retrospect the exact same responsibility to follow up and ensure Smyth was stopped.
Brady was Secretary to the Bishop.
He was the investigator of Smyth's abuse allegation.
He interviewed two boys regarding Smyth's abuse.
He swore both boys to secrecy.
He promised Boland's father Smyth would abuse no one else.
He never told the parents of the other boy.
He never told the parent of the other children named as possible victims by Boland. Smyth continued to abuse these children and some of their relatives.
Then....
Cahal Daly resigned because of his poor handling of an issue regarding the hideous Smyth. The 26 counties Government also collapsed at the same time because of their mishandling the Smyth case. Smyth was beyond toxic at that stage.
Our hero Brady then replaced Daly. Incredibly he didsn't reveal his own past with Smyth. It must have been obvious to him how this would play out some day in the future, but as he has never discussed this publicly, who knows what the hell he was thinking.
The Boland's saw a news article regarding Smyth and realised that he abused many more children and that the promise made to Boland's father was never honoured. The Boland's then went to the Gárdaí.
Boland sought all records of his investigation under data protection laws. The Church, now led by Sean Brady, frustrated this legal entitlement for over a decade. They have never explained why. This is a supposed to be a church, preaching a message of Jesus' love. Who are they kidding?
When Boland finally got his documents it proved that Sean Brady was involved. It also recorded questions that were asked of the 14 year old sex abuse victim during the investigation. He was asked if he had 'produced seed' while he was being abused. They asked if he had confessed this during confessions.
Now to Boland's Dad.
The first he knew was when his son told him in the company of a fine example of a local priest, who Boland had told first. The Dad ran out of the house and vomited in his garden.
Trusting the good priest mentioned (who has since quit the priesthood - I don't blame him) he brought the son to meet two others who were to investigate. He was told to wait outside and again he trusted the priests. Afterwards Sean Brady told him Smyth would abuse no more.
The Boland's thought that was the end of it until a news story appeared regarding Smyth and more abused children. The Dad then went to the Gárdaí.
..................
Your logic is that of a football hooligan, i.e. he is on our side so he must be all right and everyone else is to blame. Brady's logic is even worse. The Nuremberg defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders) is absolutely shocking for a man of his position. But he has never explained why he never told us of his involvement for so long. He has never explained why he broke the law issuing an illegal oath. He has never told us why he didn't inform the other families that their children were at risk. He has never told us how he could take Cahal Daly's job, given the former had resigned for mishandling an issue that wouldn't have even happened if he himself hadn't mishandled the same issue years before. He has never explained why the church, of which he was head, refused to release the records of Boland's investigation. Everything that Brady did since Cahal Daly resigned, has the stench of prioritising Brady first.
How anyone can compare all of what Brady did, with the victim's father, is as I said, a level of pure evil that I cannot get my head around.
Quote from: Orior on March 10, 2015, 11:51:18 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 10, 2015, 09:35:20 AM
Stop with the silly questions, Orior and I know you didn't start it, but can we also stop bringing up child abuse in a discussion about homophobia?
You don't need me or anyone else to inform your conscience. The last time you posted that story here you described it as "rumours" about a priest who was "asking boys about what they do with their girlfriends" and "wandering through the dormitories at night". Do you really see an equivalence between that and Brady's facilitation of child rape?
Even if you do (and you don't, I hope) you know the answer to your rhetorical questions. They're facile. You were a child. You had no responsibility then. If you think there's a possibility that this is still going on now, you know your responsibilities.
Fair enough, and my complements on your memory.
I still believe that the hounding of Sean Brady is harsh and in the absence of anyone else he has become a scapegoat. The real culprit is the guy who ordered Brady to deal with Smyth and silence his victims.
You seem to be a genuine individual Orior and I believe that you genuinely feel that Sean Brady was hard done. Is it fair to say that you t feel he has been singled out unfairly while others, who found themselves in a similar situation, don't attract the vilification he does.
Fair enough, I think you deserve my reasons since I was the one who brought the subject up on this thread.
It could be said with great justification that Desmond Connell, former Archbishop of Dublin was at least as bad if not worse. Do you recall that Connell's successor, Diarmuid Martin, took the extraordinary step of threatening to take him to (civil) court if he didn't hand over to the gardai files they had asked for to help in their investigations.
When you count the number of paedophile priests that Connell facilitated by blatantly ignoring their activities and provided €30,000 of diocesan funds to settle a case against Ivan Payne before it was brought to court.
Really hard to understand why John B Brady, who only covered up for one evl bastard, should get so much more attention that the other bollix, isn't it?
Shouldn't be.
Brady was by then Cardinal Sean, the primate of All Ireland, when the media arrived at his front door. That, if Wikipedia is to be believed, happened in 2010.
Yet, (with due acknowledgements to the indefatigable muppet,) Brady came out with this howler in 2009;
"If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign."
Did he resign when he was outed? Did he hell!
First, he tried to deflect blame for the cover-up by saying he was only a "mere notary." In simple English, he was, by implication, pinning the blame one or other who made up the ungodly trio sent to silence Brendan Boland and allow Smyth carry on as before.
Now, given his position of influence in the Irish Catholic Church, the boyo who was supposed to guide his flock by precept and example, turned out to be a paedophile facilitator, who tried to blame someone else for his illegal and immoral actions. Furthermore, he refused to acknowledge that he had caused many innocent children to be violated by a clearly deranged individual and he wasn't prepared to apologise for his inactivity.
Do you still think Sean Brady was the man to lead the Catholic Church anywhere, except maybe over the Cliffs of Moher?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2015, 09:20:27 PM
I would not let a room to an unmarried hetrosexual couple either
Ah now Anthony. You're telling me that in those decades of courtship with the boul Fifi, before wedlock, and having travelled the world with her....you always slept in different rooms..........?
Quote from: MuppetHow anyone can compare all of what Brady did, with the victim's father, is as I said, a level of pure evil that I cannot get my head around.
This statement represents a devaluation of language. Both the father and Brady believed that something would be done and were assured by people that something would be done. It is easy to say in 2015 that you would not believe that anything would happen, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.
As for the comparison with Daly. It was appropriate for Daly to resign as he had authority to deal with things and didn't. Brady had been peripherally involved but had no authority to act directly on the problem. The one solid point that you do make is that Brady was in charge when the data release was stonewalled, so it cannot be said that he had come into the job with the intention to sort things out.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 10, 2015, 10:53:59 PM
Quote from: MuppetHow anyone can compare all of what Brady did, with the victim's father, is as I said, a level of pure evil that I cannot get my head around.
This statement represents a devaluation of language. Both the father and Brady believed that something would be done and were assured by people that something would be done. It is easy to say in 2015 that you would not believe that anything would happen, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.
As for the comparison with Daly. It was appropriate for Daly to resign as he had authority to deal with things and didn't. Brady had been peripherally involved but had no authority to act directly on the problem. The one solid point that you do make is that Brady was in charge when the data release was stonewalled, so it cannot be said that he had come into the job with the intention to sort things out.
We know that is the case for Boland's father.
But what proof do we have that is was the case for Brady?
I absolutely reject that Brady was 'peripherally involved'. This was no skivvy. He was a Canon Lawyer and was Secretary to the Bishop. Some people like to portray that type 'secretary' as a mere typist or someone who posts the letters. It is inconceivable that he didn't know what was going on within the diocese.
Finally you never addressed why Brady never revealed any part of his involvement until he was forced to. The reason we are judging it in today's context is because it was concealed for so long. We only found out in 2010. He might have been judged better 20 years ago, but whose fault is that?
Has Brady not admitted his mistakes of forty years ago and begged for forgiveness
Quote from: T Fearon on March 10, 2015, 11:15:28 PM
Has Brady not admitted his mistakes of forty years ago and begged for forgiveness
Big f*cking deal!
He only lamely and unconvincingly apologised
when he had absolutely no choice. The apology wasn't accepted either and he never resigned his position. Even the most awful politician would have walked with something like that on his hands. Brady hid everything he could for those 40 years. That man is a moral disgrace and a coward.
The 14 year old boy who made the complaint had more courage than a thousand Sean Bradys.
Tony's lame argument about preventing sin regarding homosexuality, rings desperately hollow in the face of his beloved church leader who failed to prevent a particular evil sin and went along with a line of action designed to protect the church, rather than the children.
Tony, you've been so badly pinned by Muppet there's a Wile-E-Coyote cut-out of you on the gym floor. I bet he's managed to sway some fence-sitters, but your persistence in defending something(s) more heinous than a 'mistake' makes you seem like a spin doctor, a stance that far from allaying anti-clerical sentiment may well be intensifying it. I've never met Cardinal Brady, am told that he's delightful, but Muppet's well-martialed evidence juxtaposed against your straw-grasping casts him and the church in a very dim light. Sincere humility and more convincing contrition might help, but that's as likely as a gay pride headquarters being established in a Poyntzpass B & B.
Rubbish.I judge people in the round,and what their contribution over a lifetime is,not a mistake they made 40 years ago.Brady if he is to blame,is no more or less so than the victims parents who at the time had exactly the same knowledge as Brady but like him,failed to stop Brendan Smyth.
Then again,it was always going to take more than a 30 something priest and/or one set of parents to stop Brendan Smyth.A litany of people were aware of his crimes,in different countries,for decades,and most of them a lot more senior to and wielding a lot more influence than Fr Brady in the mid 70s.
To blame Sean Brady for the abomination that was Brendan Smyth is ludicrous,cowardly and facist.In reality anti Catholics love nothing more than a mere whiff of scandal involving the most Senior cleric in the Land (even if it was 40 years ago) to spread their hate filled propaganda,to confirm their gratuitous delusions.
Interestingly Muppet presumes to know everything about the Bolands (on the flimsy basis that they wrote it in a book therefore it must be true) and their " honourable" motivations at every turn,but admits to knowing nothing about Brady's motivations but assumes the worst of him at all times.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 11, 2015, 05:39:39 AMBrady if he is to blame,is no more or less so than the victims parents who at the time had exactly the same knowledge as Brady but like him,failed to stop Brendan Smyth.
This is truly loathsome and disgusting. Is there no depth you will hesitate to sink to?
Excellent work above, muppet in documenting the truth of the Brady scandal.
So there were two rooms booked in City West on the wrong weekend ;D
Quote from: Hardy on March 11, 2015, 11:30:32 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 11, 2015, 05:39:39 AMBrady if he is to blame,is no more or less so than the victims parents who at the time had exactly the same knowledge as Brady but like him,failed to stop Brendan Smyth.
This is truly loathsome and disgusting. Is there no depth you will hesitate to sink to?
Now there's a rhetorical question if ever there was one.
Yes Hardy,Muppet is to be congratulated on exposing the fact that Mr Boland's father was aware.of his son's abuse bit failed to go to the statutory authorities.
do you know what tony i think you should stop now, you have gone too far and its beyond a wind up now. you can keep going of course after all this is just a discussion board but you are really really letting yourself down now.
I will stop when someone explains to me how a relatively Junior cleric can be pilloried for alleged inaction over Brendan Smyth but a victim's father with the same knowledge as the cleric is totally exonerated.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 10, 2015, 10:53:59 PM
Quote from: MuppetHow anyone can compare all of what Brady did, with the victim's father, is as I said, a level of pure evil that I cannot get my head around.
This statement represents a devaluation of language. Both the father and Brady believed that something would be done and were assured by people that something would be done. It is easy to say in 2015 that you would not believe that anything would happen, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.
As for the comparison with Daly. It was appropriate for Daly to resign as he had authority to deal with things and didn't. Brady had been peripherally involved but had no authority to act directly on the problem. The one solid point that you do make is that Brady was in charge when the data release was stonewalled, so it cannot be said that he had come into the job with the intention to sort things out.
With all due respect, so does your second sentence.
Sure, both men expected that something would be done as a result of the investigation, the key point is that they were expecting different outcomes.
Mr Boland believed that what Fr John B told him was indeed true and that the purpose of his visit was to ensure that Smyth's activities would be stopped.
Brady was a career diplomat and quite a sharp one at that. At the time he was private secretary to the bishop of the diocese. So he was privy to whatever correspondence landed on his desk and he knew the extent of the paedophile problem in Ireland before he set out to silence the Bolands. HJe was a trusted confidente of the bollix who sent him on his evil way.. Logic has no meaning if Brady felt he was on a mission to prevent Brendan Boland and other innocent children being abused by the likes of Brendan Smyth.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 11, 2015, 12:04:54 PM
Yes Hardy,Muppet is to be congratulated on exposing the fact that Mr Boland's father was aware.of his son's abuse bit failed to go to the statutory authorities.
I have told you many times here that it was the Boland's who went to the Gárdaí.
40 years on and Brady still hasn't gone to the Gárdaí, afaik. If he had any integrity he would present himself for questioning armed with all records of his (and indeed the entire church's) involvement in anything to to with Smyth and/or other abusers.
His weak apology "
We are judging the behaviour of 35 years ago by the standards we set today and I don't think that is fair and it's not applied to other sectors of society," is particularly crass given the main reason we are only talking about Brady's involvement in the last few years is:
a) that the church refused to release the records to the Bolands for so long.
and
b) incredibly the church has still not handed over all records to the Gárdaí and the State otherwise it would have shown up earlier.
Brady's modus operandi appears to be: say nothing for as many years as possible then blame the prevailing culture at the time of the event. This from the Primate of All-Ireland, regarding the sexual abuse of children, is unforgivable.
No one is saying Brady is to completely to blame for Smyth's abuse. That is the only argument Tony has left, i.e. pretend that is what everyone is saying. What Brady is to blame for is covering up his failure to take a golden opportunity to stop a serial child abuser in his tracks. He is also to blame for not telling the parents of the other children and thus doing nothing to stop the abuse continuing, which it did in some cases. When, as Secretary to the Bishop, it must have been obvious to him nothing was done, as a decent man and Irish citizen with any remote concern for children, he should have done something more about it. Add to that the lengths to which the church, over which he presided, went to deny a victim his right to see the records of that investigation.
Cui bono?
In my view this cover up had the following effect:
1) Brady - It would obviously have been very damaging if it was made public and thus the secrecy helped him enormously. It may have even been the difference in his various appointments rising to the top cleric in the land.
Verdict - Highly beneficial to Brady
2) The Church in Ireland - While this would have been damaging but if it had been made public at the time of the Smyth scandal, the damage would have been relatively small. By sitting on it for so long it could be argued that it did far more damage years later than it would have, say, in the early 1990s.
Verdict - Increasingly damaging to the church to sit on it for so long.
3) The victims - Smyth abused the children. The church then abused them with their 'investigation' and getting them to sign an illegal oath of secrecy. The church continued this abuse of victims by not releasing its records. Boland sought, and was entitled to the records of his interview but the Brady led church refused to hand them over for (13?) years. This constituted ongoing abuse of the victims.
Verdict - This constituted a continuation of the abuse of rights of these people and it added insult to awful injury.
The reality is that many in the church do not see the abused children as victims to any degree, they see Brady and the church as the victim. Brady's apology means nothing, as evidenced by its rejection by the abused, until he does everything in his power to get the church to hand over all of the records.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 11, 2015, 01:14:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 10, 2015, 10:53:59 PM
Quote from: MuppetHow anyone can compare all of what Brady did, with the victim's father, is as I said, a level of pure evil that I cannot get my head around.
This statement represents a devaluation of language. Both the father and Brady believed that something would be done and were assured by people that something would be done. It is easy to say in 2015 that you would not believe that anything would happen, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.
As for the comparison with Daly. It was appropriate for Daly to resign as he had authority to deal with things and didn't. Brady had been peripherally involved but had no authority to act directly on the problem. The one solid point that you do make is that Brady was in charge when the data release was stonewalled, so it cannot be said that he had come into the job with the intention to sort things out.
With all due respect, so does your second sentence.
Sure, both men expected that something would be done as a result of the investigation, the key point is that they were expecting different outcomes.
Mr Boland believed that what Fr John B told him was indeed true and that the purpose of his visit was to ensure that Smyth's activities would be stopped.
Brady was a career diplomat and quite a sharp one at that. At the time he was private secretary to the bishop of the diocese. So he was privy to whatever correspondence landed on his desk and he knew the extent of the paedophile problem in Ireland before he set out to silence the Bolands. HJe was a trusted confidente of the bollix who sent him on his evil way.. Logic has no meaning if Brady felt he was on a mission to prevent Brendan Boland and other innocent children being abused by the likes of Brendan Smyth.
Correct Lar, that and also Boland's Dad wasn't head of a church that refused to hand over the records for 13 years.
Yes you expect an human individual to willingly draw attention to a controversy he was unwillingly involved in?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 11, 2015, 01:50:08 PM
Yes you expect an human individual to willingly draw attention to a controversy he was unwillingly involved in?
I expect him to put the child victims first. I expect him to put the suffering of the families first. Their involvement was far more unwilling than his was. I would expect him to have stood up for the brave 14 year old for drawing 'attention to a controversy he was unwillingly involved in' instead of allowing the suffering to continue for decades.
In short I would expect the Primate of All-Ireland to practice a bit of what he preached.
Good man, Tony, but you can't just brush off my match assessment with a 'Rubbish' because, well, it's just that, my view of how the match is going, and it's not going that well for you
But your response does point to a few essential flaws in your position. Your statement 'Brady, if he is to blame...' is an example. You are on the doorstep of placing some degree of blame on Fr. Brady, but then pull up short. As an agent/representative of the church in this case, he has to accept some culpability, but then you argue that his blame is equal to that of the parents. That is especially weak. Elsewhere you have acknowledged that it was a different time, some 40 years ago, but one of the features of that time was the faith that ordinary people had in the church and the stranglehold the church had over those trusting people. To blame them equally, they who were duped by a church that failed them and other parents after them is reprehensible. This line of attack, quite simply, seeks to blame the victim, a favorite ploy adopted in rape cases.
Then, to characterize Fr. Brady as a 30-something priest is to further diminish his responsibility. 30-something is not 17-something. He was an adult, plain and simple, trained in canon law, not a mere child like Smyth's targets and was undoubtedly aware of the significance of conducting an inquisition, under oath, behind closed doors, beyond the hearing of the boy's parents.
Also, I don't think anyone is blaming Fr. Brady for creating the Smyth monster; rather, it's that knowing his pedophile proclivity, the church allowed him to prey on other children. Put simply, the church is in the business of right and wrong. There is no gray area here. The church facilitated his reign of terror. Further, I don't see how blaming the church representative can be construed as 'cowardly' when patently it was the church's failure to act that was cowardly. And then, you latch on to the incendiary word 'fascist', whose relevance to the case is unclear, except for the irony of the church's affiliation to fascist regimes throughout the last century.
But then you rail against critics of the way the situation was handled as anti-Catholics, which I find
especially abhorrent. In my experience, it is Catholics like myself who are the most vehement in their censure of how the church deliberately mishandled and concealed this scandal. To have the bedrock of your faith shaken by people whose primary interest is self-protection and deceit is soul-destroying. Don't blame anti-Catholics and their so-called 'hate-filled propaganda'. Consider, instead, the legitimate outrage of good Catholics.
I'll say it again, Tony. You are doing the church's cause no good by shaming victims and appearing to sanction what is, and remains, an ongoing cover-up.
And in pugilistic terms, Muppet has knocked you out on the merits of his case, but you just don't know it yet.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2015, 06:06:21 PM
Biffos is better Muppet.
Biffos are ALWAYS better. As for Tony, lads I really don't know why ye bother. If he means what he says, he's beyond redemption. If he is winding ye up, ye are just facilitating him.
I suppose the one thing we've learned here is that if we ever, ever, ever agree with anything Tony writes here, we should seriously reexamine our own positions :)
Orasteach,Muppet spends his life indulging his obsession ie paedophilia among so called Catholic clerics.
The fact is no one knows what Brady did or didn't do.Was he given assurances by his superiors that they would act on his reports? Did they investigate them (and remember these came from children) and find there was no further evidence to act on?
I too am disgusted by the shameful way abuse was handled in the church.But it is a bureaucracy I which everyone has a place and it doesn't matter whether your 26,36 or 96.
I believe Sean Brady to be an honourable decent Christian man,who like all of us has made mistakes.
By the way if any organisation or individual is accorded too much respect and deference then it is the fault of those who give it.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 11, 2015, 06:15:42 PM
By the way if any organisation or individual is accorded too much respect and deference then it is the fault of those who give it.
You're just parodying yourself now.
Quote from: muppet on March 11, 2015, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 11, 2015, 12:04:54 PM
Yes Hardy,Muppet is to be congratulated on exposing the fact that Mr Boland's father was aware.of his son's abuse bit failed to go to the statutory authorities.
I have told you many times here that it was the Boland's who went to the Gárdaí.
40 years on and Brady still hasn't gone to the Gárdaí, afaik. If he had any integrity he would present himself for questioning armed with all records of his (and indeed the entire church's) involvement in anything to to with Smyth and/or other abusers.
His weak apology "We are judging the behaviour of 35 years ago by the standards we set today and I don't think that is fair and it's not applied to other sectors of society," is particularly crass given the main reason we are only talking about Brady's involvement in the last few years is:
a) that the church refused to release the records to the Bolands for so long.
and
b) incredibly the church has still not handed over all records to the Gárdaí and the State otherwise it would have shown up earlier.
Brady's modus operandi appears to be: say nothing for as many years as possible then blame the prevailing culture at the time of the event. This from the Primate of All-Ireland, regarding the sexual abuse of children, is unforgivable.
No one is saying Brady is to completely to blame for Smyth's abuse. That is the only argument Tony has left, i.e. pretend that is what everyone is saying. What Brady is to blame for is covering up his failure to take a golden opportunity to stop a serial child abuser in his tracks. He is also to blame for not telling the parents of the other children and thus doing nothing to stop the abuse continuing, which it did in some cases. When, as Secretary to the Bishop, it must have been obvious to him nothing was done, as a decent man and Irish citizen with any remote concern for children, he should have done something more about it. Add to that the lengths to which the church, over which he presided, went to deny a victim his right to see the records of that investigation.
Cui bono?
In my view this cover up had the following effect:
1) Brady - It would obviously have been very damaging if it was made public and thus the secrecy helped him enormously. It may have even been the difference in his various appointments rising to the top cleric in the land.
Verdict - Highly beneficial to Brady
2) The Church in Ireland - While this would have been damaging but if it had been made public at the time of the Smyth scandal, the damage would have been relatively small. By sitting on it for so long it could be argued that it did far more damage years later than it would have, say, in the early 1990s.
Verdict - Increasingly damaging to the church to sit on it for so long.
3) The victims - Smyth abused the children. The church then abused them with their 'investigation' and getting them to sign an illegal oath of secrecy. The church continued this abuse of victims by not releasing its records. Boland sought, and was entitled to the records of his interview but the Brady led church refused to hand them over for (13?) years. This constituted ongoing abuse of the victims.
Verdict - This constituted a continuation of the abuse of rights of these people and it added insult to awful injury.
The reality is that many in the church do not see the abused children as victims to any degree, they see Brady and the church as the victim. Brady's apology means nothing, as evidenced by its rejection by the abused, until he does everything in his power to get the church to hand over all of the records.
Devastatingly good Muppet.
Completely agree with AZ - we are facilitating a wind up merchant, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't marvel at the energy, intricacy and malevolence of said wind up. I can only imagine at the mindset of someone who would continually repeat obscenities for kicks - it's actually probably more intrinsically awful than a true believer because
a. a true believer's words can be put down to honest-to-goodness delusions
b. a wind up about a subject like this shows that the WUM himself values absolutely nothing and is scarily empty inside.
Yawn. Same old same old.Church to blame for everything,parental responsibility counts for nothing. ::)
Once again I ask the question,what value personally is it for any cleric to attain high office in the Catholic Church? Money? Ego? I just don't see anything other than devotion to service and an extremely thick skin.Do you think any clergyman ever,in their mid 30s thinks they'll be (or wants to be) a Cardinal?
And, so, Tony, with a sweep of the Pontifical hand, you reduce your opponents' argument to absurd extremes-- the church is responsible for EVERYTHING and personal responsibility means NOTHING. Of course, neither is true absolutely, but given that a representative of the church is responsible for the crime and the church itself was complicit in a cover-up, then, of necessity, the church must shoulder the much greater responsibility.
And as for your question in your last post, I'd say Ego is your best bet.
Brady was wrong to not report what he was part of and witness to. The Church was wrong in it's cover up of the abuse and it's handling of everything since.
I've said before that Brady was following vows which none of us will ever understand. I can only wrestle with the Marriage vows I have taken and wonder what I would do to follow them, what I would choose over them. I don't know and never will. Those vows are not to be taken lightly. In saying that I'd hope in the same position I would have chosen the right thing over any vows I had to any church.
I don't know if Brady had Cardinal or Pope or any high rank on his mind back then. He doesn't strike me as the type. He isn't charismatic in any way, he isn't dynamic, he isn't really Cardinal material. He has never struck me as a very holy man or someone I would follow like his predecessors. So i don't know about that one...
We're way off the topic of the whole thread though and 40 odd pages lately we've stroked Tony's ego to no end.
Tony does not represent the Church nor do I. But if Tony is the church then I'm ashamed to be a part of it and God help us all
We are witnessing the modern day equivalent of all this now with Sinn Fein.The human instinct is to protect an institution's reputation at all costs,deal with things in house etc.
It is of course the wrong option.
Iceman I agree with a lot of what you say,aside from the unnecessary derogatory comments against myself.But I am not the Church (and most certainly neither was the likes of Brendan Smyth) and although I feel Brady was thrust into the post of Cardinal unwillingly I think he was far more devout than the likes of O'Fiaich,who could mix it with the best including Thatcher.
I would point out the opinion of the non Catholic religious correspondent of the Belfast Telegraph,Alf Mc Creary,a man not shy about expressing an honest opinion,who said Brady is a good and decent man who was caught up in an horrendous situation.
What does the opinion of one writer in the Belfast Telegraph prove?!
A non Catholic religious correspondent of many years standing.His objective opinion on any aspect of religion is surely worthy of respect
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 12, 2015, 06:58:08 AM
What does the opinion of one writer in the Belfast Telegraph prove?!
I decided to look up Alf McCreary's comments on Brady and sure enough Tony is only quoting what suits him.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/alf-mccreary/clearly-cardinal-bradys-time-at-helm-is-almost-up-28746231.html (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/alf-mccreary/clearly-cardinal-bradys-time-at-helm-is-almost-up-28746231.html)
He is supportive of Brady, to a point, but still makes comments such as the following:
"One of the saddest sights this week has been watching Cardinal Sean Brady trying to defend the indefensible. He is a good man caught up in a public struggle for the soul of the Irish Catholic Church, and he is now well out of his depth."
Tony doesn't mention that McCreary called for his resignation. For most of Brady's critics this is the most galling aspect of the sad episode. I suspect the majority of critics would have accepted his resignation as sufficient. I can't speak for the victims.
He resigned or retired when a competent replacement was found.What is it about "He is a good man" that you don't understand.
Do you get off on researching paedophilia in the Catholic Church?
What is the biggest threat to gay rights....Catholic fundamentalism or Islamic apologism ?
Gays have a plethora of rights,they're not under threat from anyone.Its Christian rights that are abused nowadays.
Anthony, did ye ever share a hotel/BB room with the wife before you were married? Now, be a Christian and be honest.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 12, 2015, 11:28:28 PM
Gays have a plethora of rights,they're not under threat from anyone.Its Christian rights that are abused nowadays.
wrong answer. Gays have the basic rights they are due as human beings. Someday you will see this Tony.
Stop feeding the beast.
My point is that the church has an opportunity. It has so much scope to reinvent itself in the face of the barbarity that is enveloping the world. People are trying to make sense of the world. The church should help not hinder.
The Church cannot alter its beliefs to court popularity.What was sinful in 1950 is sinful still and always will be.Gays have equal rights and will soon have the right to marry,so they're not exactly an oppressed minority,but Christian business owners don't have the right to decline business when doing so conflicts with their beliefs.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 13, 2015, 06:46:39 AM
The Church cannot alter its beliefs to court popularity.What was sinful in 1950 is sinful still and always will be.Gays have equal rights and will soon have the right to marry,so they're not exactly an oppressed minority,but Christian business owners don't have the right to decline business when doing so conflicts with their beliefs.
Why have you not answered O'Neills's question above?
Do you seriously expect me to answer a crass question like that? I wouldn't even divulge that to a priest much less a bald voyeur from Tyrone
Quote from: T Fearon on March 12, 2015, 10:46:10 PM
He resigned or retired when a competent replacement was found.What is it about "He is a good man" that you don't understand.
Do you get off on researching paedophilia in the Catholic Church?
I am truly fascinated.
The Telegraph's reporter balanced his article with, on the one hand, comments about Brady being a decent man with on the other criticism of his role in the Smyth case. But the former is the only thing Tony saw. The rest of the article criticised him along the lines of most people's criticism here, e.g. he should have resigned, he was defending the indefensible and failing etc.
How does this blindness work Tony? Do you see the other words and ignore them or do you not see them at all?
As for your last comment. Well, pedophilia is used by people like you to attack homosexuality. Pedophilia is something that we know was practised my members of the church and we also know it was covered up by the church. We know that you support people who were involved in that cover up.
People like you and Sean Brady don't want anyone asking questions of the church regarding their role in the evil of pedophilia.You even try to shift some of the blame off the church and onto the parents of abuse victims. This coming from the sort of man who wouldn't do business with people because you think they might 'sin', is astonishing hypocrisy, even by your standards.
Tony, I'm not conversant with the nuances of sin like yourself, but answering O'Neill's question by saying you wouldn't reveal 'that' even to a priest constitutes sin in itself, doesn't it? Or maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that knowingly withholding a sin in the confessional and thereby performing a 'bad' confession is sin per se. Who's got the Rule book?
Muppet Mc Creary describes Brady as a "good man" On this Board,one poster called him a "miserable bastard" Spot the difference?
Yes - one person holds the opinion that he is a "good" person, though his actions were more than questionable. Another person holds the opinion that he is a "miserable bastard". Both are entitled to their opinion.
If only you divided opinion like that Tony.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 13, 2015, 06:33:51 PM
Muppet Mc Creary describes Brady as a "good man" On this Board,one poster called him a "miserable b**tard" Spot the difference?
You were the one who referenced McCreary's 'objective opinion' but then omitted the negative aspects. You never mentioned all of the criticism McCreary had of Brady in his 'objective opinion'. You never mentioned his opinion that Brady was defending the indefensible and failing. You never mentioned his call for Brady to resign in 2010.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 13, 2015, 02:31:31 PM
Do you seriously expect me to answer a crass question like that? I wouldn't even divulge that to a priest much less a bald voyeur from Tyrone
Aren't they one in the same? All joking aside, not really a crass question at all. I presume he is simply trying to ascertain whether or not you would have been allowed to stay in your hypothetical B&B had and your lady friend sought to book a room there before you were married.
Still a crass question.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 13, 2015, 07:57:44 PM
Still a crass question.
Is it not also crass to assume that a gay couple will inevitably have sex and commit a 'sin' without having the same concern about an unmarried straight couple doing the same or a single person pleasuring themselves?
It is also ridiculous how often you have dodged or avoided challenging questions throughout this thread.
In addition, it is not a crass question to ask at all by the way. Nobody gives a f**k what you and your lady friend did or did not get up to if you did indeed stay in a B&B before wedlock. Rather, people are just curious to know if your double standards would have allowed you to take up a room in such a scenario.
I think asking for the details of a poster's sex life is inappropriate.
Quote
In addition, it is not a crass question to ask at all by the way. Nobody gives a f**k what you and your lady friend did or did not get up to if you did indeed stay in a B&B before wedlock. Rather, people are just curious to know if your double standards would have allowed you to take up a room in such a scenario.
If you don't think it crass, then perhaps you and your fellow travellers would like to list the people with whom you have visited B&Bs and what the nature of your relationship, so that we can understand your standards on this matter.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 14, 2015, 01:20:38 AM
I think asking for the details of a poster's sex life is inappropriate.
Quote
In addition, it is not a crass question to ask at all by the way. Nobody gives a f**k what you and your lady friend did or did not get up to if you did indeed stay in a B&B before wedlock. Rather, people are just curious to know if your double standards would have allowed you to take up a room in such a scenario.
If you don't think it crass, then perhaps you and your fellow travellers would like to list the people with whom you have visited B&Bs and what the nature of your relationship, so that we can understand your standards on this matter.
f**king pedantry of the highest order. By all means jump in the giant hole Tony has dug himself but loves to kid himself that the joke is on everyone else, but at least try and come up with something a bit more robust than "leave Fearon's sex life alone. You're all dreadful for asking after such a thing" when you know fine rightly that's not what's being questioned.
(Although if Tony wants to be so literal about the question, it's a shaneg that he takes a dissent approach when attempting, but failing miserably, to use the bible to justify his contemptible bigotry)
Quote from: gallsman on March 14, 2015, 01:35:33 AM
f**king pedantry of the highest order. By all means jump in the giant hole Tony has dug himself but loves to kid himself that the joke is on everyone else, but at least try and come up with something a bit more robust than "leave Fearon's sex life alone. You're all dreadful for asking after such a thing" when you know fine rightly that's not what's being questioned.
If it is not being questioned, why are you discussing it?
Quote from: armaghniac on March 14, 2015, 01:47:45 AM
Quote from: gallsman on March 14, 2015, 01:35:33 AM
f**king pedantry of the highest order. By all means jump in the giant hole Tony has dug himself but loves to kid himself that the joke is on everyone else, but at least try and come up with something a bit more robust than "leave Fearon's sex life alone. You're all dreadful for asking after such a thing" when you know fine rightly that's not what's being questioned.
If it is not being questioned, why are you discussing it?
I'm not. I couldn't give a shite about his sex life or lack thereof then, now or ever.
What I am fascinated by is the ridiculous double standards to how he judges others but refuses to apply to himself, which was the real point behind O'Neill's question. Not to try and get some juicy gossip on the lothario that is Tony Fearon.
However, if you're so literal and shocked about it (which you're not, but let's play along anyway), what was asked was if Tony ever put a B&B or hotel proprietor in the position of wondering whether or not he was going to commit sin under his roof and therefore whether he should facilitate it or was entitled to deny service and consequently how would Fearon have felt about it. You know, because as Tony says, a gay couple are far more likely to have sex in a hotel than a straight couple ::)
I don't think you are entitled to ask any poster to describe their sex life on Gaaboard, no matter how many slippery ways you rephrase the question.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 14, 2015, 11:42:54 AM
I don't think you are entitled to ask any poster to describe their sex life on Gaaboard, no matter how many slippery ways you rephrase the question.
If you think the above, which is fair enough, why did you ignore this question from Tony?
QuoteDo you get off on researching paedophilia in the Catholic Church?
Quote from: muppet on March 14, 2015, 12:41:50 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 14, 2015, 11:42:54 AM
I don't think you are entitled to ask any poster to describe their sex life on Gaaboard, no matter how many slippery ways you rephrase the question.
If you think the above, which is fair enough, why did you ignore this question from Tony?
QuoteDo you get off on researching paedophilia in the Catholic Church?
I have other things to be doing than parsing this thread. In the first case it seemed that several posters had jumped on the bandwagon. The second seems to have been repeated and is well out of order.
If yous don't behave yourselves, you won't be allowed go to the football.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 14, 2015, 11:42:54 AM
I don't think you are entitled to ask any poster to describe their sex life on Gaaboard, no matter how many slippery ways you rephrase the question.
It's a discussion board - anyone is entitled to ask that question. Just not entitled to expect a response if the question was intended the way you're pretending to have taken it.
I'm now beginning to empathise with Colin Farrell.Now can we get this debate back on track?