What's the latest from the conclave?
Quote from: Oraisteach on March 13, 2013, 04:29:51 PM
What's the latest from the conclave?
No
(http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k389/quantumleaping/Screenshot2013-03-13at164906_zpsc19f8966.png)
I don't suppose that bird's a cardinal
That which holds the image of an Angel, become itself an Angel.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/12/papal-conclave-live-blog-will-it-be-white-smoke-or-not-3537372/
(http://i1323.photobucket.com/albums/u588/kiliman1/Itsagirl_zps206fdded.jpg)
Hilarious blog, Harold, good one, Dixie
Its a sign, I'm going to follow the Seagull, the Church of the Seagull.
All hail the feathered one.
All joking aside on the pink smoke, but this happened at the Vatican
http://feministing.com/2013/03/13/pink-smoke-released-over-vatican-protesting-lack-of-women-priests/
Pink smoke released over Vatican protesting lack of women priests
The release of black smoke, and not white smoke, from The Vatican chimney signified that a new pope had not been named. But what was the meaning of the less visible and less discussed pink smoke released over The Vatican? It was a protest against The Vatican's refusal to ordain women priests.
Erin Saiz Hanna, the director of the Women's Ordination Conference, which staged the protest and has been advocating for the ordination of women for three decades, stated,
"The current old boys' club has left our Church reeling from scandal, abuse, sexism and oppression.... The people of the Church are desperate for a leader who will be open to dialogue and embrace the gifts of women's wisdom in every level of Church governance."
Miriam Duignan, Communications coordinator of the association 'Women can be priests' said,
"The Catholic church should be a healthy and vibrant place with equality, with both men and women called to the priesthood. Jesus did not exclude women. Jesus encouraged women and actively sought to include them.... So why do the cardinals who are supposed to represent Jesus, make a point of actively excluding women, of telling them to be quiet? And of criminalising anybody that speaks out in favour of women priests?"
Therese Koturbash, the international ambassador of the organization Women Priests explained, "[t]he pink smoke is a sign of the voices we're mourning who are excluded from the current conclave." Despite the Church's intransigence and Pope Benedict's crack down on the ordination of women, Koturbash is hopeful: "Already there have been so many changes that have happened in the church, that it wouldn't be a big step to start including women."
Not to be a downer, but I wouldn't hold my breath. A potential pope, the Canadian cardinal Marc Ouellet, said that the issue of women in The Church is "secondary." Good to know.
There's white smoke according to the BBC
Quote from: Tubberman on March 13, 2013, 06:08:10 PM
There's white smoke according to the BBC
Announcement as to who the new Pope is at 7pm our time.
Habemus Papam
Quote from: Tubberman on March 13, 2013, 06:08:10 PM
There's white smoke according to the BBC
Probably Ming.
And the pope is????
And the new Pope is..........................
(http://i1323.photobucket.com/albums/u588/kiliman1/PopeDougal_zps63af3718.jpg)
Saint Malachy was optimistic:
In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit [i.e., as bishop].
Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End.
Quote from: stew on March 13, 2013, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 13, 2013, 06:21:59 PM
Saint Malachy was optimistic:
In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit [i.e., as bishop].
Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End.
Feck me, maybe it was Armagh, not Rome malachy was going on about, after all Armagh was built on seven hills........................... We are all fecked.
Pope Stew of Armagh has a ring to it!
False alarm on the white smoke.....
(http://i1323.photobucket.com/albums/u588/kiliman1/Falsealarm_zps00884da5.jpg)
very good
I love that new Pope smell.
Scola has it and he will be John XXIV
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on March 13, 2013, 06:32:57 PM
I love that new Pope smell.
Scola has it and he will be John XXIV
The radical era of John Paul II and Benedict will now come to an end then.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on March 13, 2013, 06:32:57 PM
I love that new Pope smell.
Scola has it and he will be John XXIV
Why John? John XXIII wouldn't strike me as someone Scola would want to emulate.
Anyone willing to hazzard a guess on who it is, or what continent he is from?
I say they stay conservative and go Italian, or European at the very least
Too few ballots for it to be anyone other than a frontrunner, I would think, so Scola looks hot right now.
Paddy Power has Scola at 1/2
I pray that the new Pope will forgive us all of our debts and together we can pray for the Bondholders in a new era of burden-sharing.
c'mon O'Malley, an Irishman
Did anyone read this article yesterday?
As cardinals gather to elect Pope, Catholic officials break into a sweat over news that priests share €23m building with huge gay sauna
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/as-cardinals-gather-to-elect-pope-catholic-officials-break-into-a-sweat-over-news-that-priests-share-23m-building-with-huge-gay-sauna-8529670.html
(http://i.imgur.com/xS660Ln.jpg)
There won't be a cow milked in Rome tonight.
The Falklands will be free very soon......
Argentinian - Cardinal Jorge Mario Borgoglio
An Argentinian and a Jesuit. Surprising apparently!
Pope Francis I
Another young pup - 76...
He'll be Pope Francie in Armagh!
Named after Mr Bellew apparently....
Another Argentine feels the Hand of God!
Go on, Chuckles, say someting about the Malvinas, I dare ya
Quote from: red hander on March 13, 2013, 07:26:28 PM
Go on, Chuckles, say someting about the Malvinas, I dare ya
Dixie got that one in first.
He knows the Our Father anyway; good start lad.
Long over due for a pope from South America or Africa given the largest catholic religious bases in these continents
Quote from: Rois on March 13, 2013, 07:19:06 PM
Another young pup - 76...
He came 2nd in the last run off.
Stole this from bakebook
Pope Francis the 1st
Work to be done:
1 Reclaim the national territory of the Malvinas
2 Send Messi,Aurego, Di'Maria and Tevez to Parkhead free of charge
The first Jesuit Pope. Rome never favoured the Jesuits in the past. Too fond of the poor.
Quote from: Lecale2 on March 13, 2013, 07:42:08 PM
The first Jesuit Pope. Rome never favoured the Jesuits in the past. Too fond of the poor.
That in itself might signal a worthwhile change.
Legendary comedian
(http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu206/Hardyarse/pope_zpsee861cd9.png)
Pope
(http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu206/Hardyarse/laurel_zps4627306b.png)
Here is his new twitter account: https://twitter.com/Pontifex (https://twitter.com/Pontifex)
Here is the old one: https://twitter.com/JMBergoglio (https://twitter.com/JMBergoglio) (Major kudos to Olly for picking the winner on twitter 5 days ago - who would have thought Olly spoke Latin?)
Twitter saying he is deleting all his old accounts.
Can anyone check if someone has deleted their GaaBoard account in the last 90 minutes?
Isn't the head of the Jesuit congregation nominally known as the black pope??
Old Malachy's prediction might be right ;)
Fr D'Arcy will be happy it's all guitars, tambourines, dancing and kumbaya around the altar now. Last one out of St Peter's switch off the lava lamp.
Quote from: muppet on March 13, 2013, 08:08:30 PM
Twitter saying he is deleting all his old accounts.
Can anyone check if someone has deleted their GaaBoard account in the last 90 minutes?
lol
Quote from: Orior on March 13, 2013, 08:32:21 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 13, 2013, 08:08:30 PM
Twitter saying he is deleting all his old accounts.
Can anyone check if someone has deleted their GaaBoard account in the last 90 minutes?
lol
DeclanUlickOrior
Could that be the end of Tony Fearons tweets in the Irish News?
The "Hand Of God" is happy about the new Pope........
(http://i1323.photobucket.com/albums/u588/kiliman1/Maradona_zpse9895075.jpg)
The sins of the Argentine church
The Catholic Church was complicit in dreadful crimes in Argentina. Now it has a chance to repent
Share 2001
inShare
0
Email
Hugh O'Shaughnessy
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 January 2011 08.20 GMT
Jump to comments (161)
Benedict XVI gave us words of great comfort and encouragement in the message he delivered on Christmas Eve.
"God anticipates us again and again in unexpected ways," the pope said. "He does not cease to search for us, to raise us up as often as we might need. He does not abandon the lost sheep in the wilderness into which it had strayed. God does not allow himself to be confounded by our sin. Again and again he begins afresh with us".
If these words comforted and encouraged me they will surely have done the same for leaders of the church in Argentina, among many others. To the judicious and fair-minded outsider it has been clear for years that the upper reaches of the Argentine church contained many "lost sheep in the wilderness", men who had communed and supported the unspeakably brutal Western-supported military dictatorship which seized power in that country in 1976 and battened on it for years. Not only did the generals slaughter thousands unjustly, often dropping them out of aeroplanes over the River Plate and selling off their orphan children to the highest bidder, they also murdered at least two bishops and many priests. Yet even the execution of other men of the cloth did nothing to shake the support of senior clerics, including representatives of the Holy See, for the criminality of their leader General Jorge Rafael Videla and his minions.
As it happens, in the week before Christmas in the city of Córdoba Videla and some of his military and police cohorts were convicted by their country's courts of the murder of 31 people between April and October 1976, a small fraction of the killings they were responsible for. The convictions brought life sentences for some of the military. These were not to be served, as has often been the case in Argentina and neighbouring Chile, in comfy armed forces retirement homes but in common prisons. Unsurprisingly there was dancing in the city's streets when the judge announced the sentences.
What one did not hear from any senior member of the Argentine hierarchy was any expression of regret for the church's collaboration and in these crimes. The extent of the church's complicity in the dark deeds was excellently set out by Horacio Verbitsky, one of Argentina's most notable journalists, in his book El Silencio (Silence). He recounts how the Argentine navy with the connivance of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now the Jesuit archbishop of Buenos Aires, hid from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission the dictatorship's political prisoners. Bergoglio was hiding them in nothing less than his holiday home in an island called El Silencio in the River Plate. The most shaming thing for the church is that in such circumstances Bergoglio's name was allowed to go forward in the ballot to chose the successor of John Paul II. What scandal would not have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America had been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment
One would have thought that the Argentine bishops would have seized the opportunity to call for pardon for themselves and put on sackcloth and ashes as the sentences were announced in Córdoba but that has not so far happened.
But happily Their Eminences have just been given another chance to express contrition. Next month the convicted murderer Videla will be arraigned for his part in the killing of Enrique Angelelli, bishop of the Andean diocese of La Rioja and a supporter of the cause of poorer Argentines. He was run off the highway by a hit squad of the Videla régime and killed on 4th August 1976 shortly after Videla's putsch.
Cardinal Bergoglio has plenty of time to be measured for a suit of sackcloth – perhaps tailored in a suitable clerical grey - to be worn when the church authorities are called into the witness box by the investigating judge in the Angelelli case. Ashes will be readily available if the records of the Argentine bishops' many disingenuous and outrightly mendacious statements about Videla and Angelelli are burned.
BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - The first Latin American pope, Argentina's Jorge Bergoglio is a moderate known for his strong negotiating skills as well as a readiness to challenge powerful interests.
He is a modest man from a middle class family who is content to travel by bus.
Described by his biographer as a balancing force, Bergoglio, 76, has monk-like habits, is media shy and deeply concerned about the social inequalities rife in his homeland and elsewhere in Latin America.
"His character is in every way that of a moderate. He is absolutely capable of undertaking the necessary renovation without any leaps into the unknown. He would be a balancing force," said Francesca Ambrogetti, who co-authored a biography of Bergoglio after carrying out a series of interviews with him over three years.
"He shares the view that the Church should have a missionary role, that gets out to meet people, that is active.... a church that does not so much regulate the faith as promote and facilitate it," she added.
"His lifestyle is sober and austere. That's the way he lives. He travels on the underground, the bus, when he goes to Rome he flies economy class."
The former cardinal, the first Jesuit to become pope, was born into a middle-class family of seven, his father a railway worker and his mother a housewife.
He is a solemn man, deeply attached to centuries-old Roman Catholic traditions. Since rejecting a comfortable archbishop's residence, he has lived in a small apartment outside Buenos Aires where he spends his weekends in solitude.
In his rare public appearances, Bergoglio spares no harsh words for politicians and Argentine society, and has had a tricky relationship with President Cristina Fernandez and her late husband and predecessor, Nestor Kirchner.
Bergoglio became a priest at 32, nearly a decade after losing a lung due to respiratory illness and quitting his chemistry studies. Despite his late start, he was leading the local Jesuit community within four years, holding the post from 1973 to 1979.
Bergoglio's vocational success coincided with the bloody 1976-1983 military dictatorship, during which up to 30,000 suspected leftists were kidnapped and killed -- which prompted sharp questions about his role.
The most well-known episode relates to the abduction of two Jesuits whom the military government secretly jailed for their work in poor neighbourhoods.
According to "The Silence," a book written by journalist Horacio Verbitsky, Bergoglio withdrew his order's protection of the two men after they refused to quit visiting the slums, which ultimately paved the way for their capture.
Verbitsky's book is based on statements by Orlando Yorio, one of the kidnapped Jesuits, before he died of natural causes in 2000. Both of the abducted clergymen survived five months of imprisonment.
"History condemns him. It shows him to be opposed to all innovation in the Church and above all, during the dictatorship, it shows he was very cosy with the military," Fortunato Mallimacci, the former dean of social sciences at the Universidad de Buenos Aires, once said.
Those who defend Bergoglio say there is no proof behind these claims and, on the contrary, they say the priest helped many dissidents escape during the military junta's rule.
That chimney in the Sistine chapel looks fierce tacky. Like putting an ould couch in under Michelangelo's fresco work. Tut tut.
Approves of contraception...
As he is relatively old and as retirement is now on the cards, he too may have a fairly short reign.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 13, 2013, 09:36:03 PM
As he is relatively old and as retirement is now on the cards, he too may have a fairly short reign.
Was thinking, he might be a trial run to see how catholics react to a pope that is more relaxed with certain views.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 13, 2013, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: Armaghgeddon on March 13, 2013, 09:28:19 PM
Approves of contraception...
BBC say the opposite.
According to a Guardian article he believes condoms "can be permissible", to prevent infection.
Quote from: give her dixie on March 13, 2013, 07:14:17 PM
The Falklands will be free very soon......
Take more than an army of men in frocks. ;)
It doesn't matter what his opinion was before on anything lads. The Pope is not the boss. He's like the U.S President, he needs congress and the senate before anything really can be changed. The church will look to him for guidance but there is a whole plethora of Cardinals and Bishops who will continue to guide the church "with" him.
He will have clout, there is no doubt about that but he won't be changing up core teaching on anything. He might help influence the weeding out of some bad elements, he might influence the re-setting of the ship and cleaning up some of the mess but he wont do anything overnight.
We won't be able to judge his capabilities or his influence I think until at least a few years into his pontificate or until he is finished.
what are your thoughts on the predictions of Nostradamus? According to him this is the last Pope. At 76 that doesn't leave much time you would imagine. Is the end of the World upon us?
Quote from: dillinger on March 13, 2013, 11:31:11 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 13, 2013, 07:14:17 PM
The Falklands will be free very soon......
Take more than an army of men in frocks. ;)
History shows all it takes for the Argentinians to defeat the Brits, is for a Mayoman to lead them ;)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 14, 2013, 12:05:00 AM
It doesn't matter what his opinion was before on anything lads. The Pope is not the boss. He's like the U.S President, he needs congress and the senate before anything really can be changed. The church will look to him for guidance but there is a whole plethora of Cardinals and Bishops who will continue to guide the church "with" him.
He will have clout, there is no doubt about that but he won't be changing up core teaching on anything. He might help influence the weeding out of some bad elements, he might influence the re-setting of the ship and cleaning up some of the mess but he wont do anything overnight.
We won't be able to judge his capabilities or his influence I think until at least a few years into his pontificate or until he is finished.
what are your thoughts on the predictions of Nostradamus? According to him this is the last Pope. At 76 that doesn't leave much time you would imagine. Is the end of the World upon us?
Bloody hell Iceman, "Nostradamus", you would believe anything wouldn't you.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 14, 2013, 12:05:00 AM
It doesn't matter what his opinion was before on anything lads. The Pope is not the boss. He's like the U.S President, he needs congress and the senate before anything really can be changed. The church will look to him for guidance but there is a whole plethora of Cardinals and Bishops who will continue to guide the church "with" him.
He will have clout, there is no doubt about that but he won't be changing up core teaching on anything. He might help influence the weeding out of some bad elements, he might influence the re-setting of the ship and cleaning up some of the mess but he wont do anything overnight.
We won't be able to judge his capabilities or his influence I think until at least a few years into his pontificate or until he is finished.
what are your thoughts on the predictions of Nostradamus? According to him this is the last Pope. At 76 that doesn't leave much time you would imagine. Is the end of the World upon us?
No.
Quote from: Lecale2 on March 13, 2013, 07:42:08 PM
The first Jesuit Pope. Rome never favoured the Jesuits in the past. Too fond of the poor.
That priest from Father Ted was right. Those "Jesuits have it all tied up!". Father Jack had no chance!
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556763_10151499265575155_1236310103_n.jpg)
In the space of 24hours ,Pope Francis has superseded Lionel Messi as the most famous Argentinian plying his trade in Europe.
Quotewhat are your thoughts on the predictions of Nostradamus?
That charlatan did not mention Popes as far as I know. You're thinking of St. Malachy.
Malachy was from Armagh.....................enough said!
The Sun has front page photo of Pope waving to the crowd under the headline Hand of God
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 14, 2013, 04:36:16 AM
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556763_10151499265575155_1236310103_n.jpg)
Well that's a fundamental Catholic belief, I wouldn't expect him to say anything different. I don't have a problem with the Catholic Church not advocating same-sex marriage.
The quote doesn't say anything about homosexuality in general - not sure if he has said anything on that.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 14, 2013, 04:36:16 AM
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556763_10151499265575155_1236310103_n.jpg)
New Pope In 'I Agree With Fundamental Belief of Church' Shock!
I am lifted by the things I have read and heard about the new pope. Best wishes to him and his term in office.
There was never going to be drastic changes within the Church, by the electing of a new Pope. However, in the election of Pope Francis, I believe we are at the beginning of a shift within the Catholic Church, which will lead onto more progressive changes over the years. That can only be welcomed.
For me, the main priorities of this new Pope, has to be the child abuse scandals. He has to deal with this with the upmost urgency. Plus, social injustices has to be up there too.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 14, 2013, 10:50:11 AM
There was never going to be drastic changes within the Church, by the electing of a new Pope. However, in the election of Pope Francis, I believe we are at the beginning of a shift within the Catholic Church, which will lead onto more progressive changes over the years. That can only be welcomed.
For me, the main priorities of this new Pope, has to be the child abuse scandals. He has to deal with this with the upmost urgency. Plus, social injustices has to be up there too.
The Vatican banking scandals are another issue. The fact he is an outsider may put him in a postion to begin reforming the Curia. He is supposedly quite outspoken on social injustice.
Quote from: LeoMc on March 14, 2013, 10:56:06 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 14, 2013, 10:50:11 AM
There was never going to be drastic changes within the Church, by the electing of a new Pope. However, in the election of Pope Francis, I believe we are at the beginning of a shift within the Catholic Church, which will lead onto more progressive changes over the years. That can only be welcomed.
For me, the main priorities of this new Pope, has to be the child abuse scandals. He has to deal with this with the upmost urgency. Plus, social injustices has to be up there too.
The Vatican banking scandals are another issue. The fact he is an outsider may put him in a postion to begin reforming the Curia. He is supposedly quite outspoken on social injustice.
The fact that he's appears to be a humble man and takes the bus to places, flies on economy flights and in Buenos Aires, he lived in a simple flat in the building of the Archdiocese, next door to the cathedral.
The world-wide congregation of Dorothys so wanted the New Wizard to be a Nice Man and breathed a collective sigh of relief when this particular Nice Old Man was revealed from behind the curtain.
Reform the Curia? Not in my lifetime or his. The Holy Spirit is no fool...
He seems to be a good choice. I wish him well.
While the media like to portray church hierarchy issues as conservatives vs. liberals, in reality there are few, if any, liberal cardinals out there. In terms of doctrine you have conservatives vs. slightly less conservatives. Doctrinally I don't foresee this Pope making any significant change in approach to the high profile issues e.g abortion, contraception, the role of women in the Catholic Church, homosexuality.
Where there may be some push for change is in Romans vs Reformers i.e. internally within the "government" of the Vatican and the Church. Best of luck to Fra on that agenda. No doubt it needs done but it isn't going to be an easy sell to the lifelong institutionalised bureaucrats who still wield a lot of power within the Vatican.
Interesting to see the British media focusing on his attitude to the Falklands. All politics are local!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 14, 2013, 04:36:16 AM
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556763_10151499265575155_1236310103_n.jpg)
dont see an issue here
church teaching what is he going to say !!!
hope he does well but he will have his work cut out for him
Quote from: Orior on March 14, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
I am lifted by the things I have read and heard about the new pope. Best wishes to him and his term in office.
I wish I knew how to post shit on here from articles on the web, the Jesuit ceremony for new priests is interesting to say the least, to say the worst it is as Un-Christian a document as I have ever read.
they are not big on the aul reformers but at least they are a step up from the lowest of the low..........the Jews!
I like this man already. Good luck and best wishes to him.
Bergoglio often rode the bus to work, cooked his own meals and regularly visited the slums that ring Argentina's capital.
He considers social outreach, rather than doctrinal battles, to be the essential business of the church.
He accused fellow church leaders of hypocrisy and forgetting that Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes.
"Jesus teaches us another way: Go out. Go out and share your testimony, go out and interact with your brothers, go out and share, go out and ask. Become the Word in body as well as spirit," Bergoglio told Argentina's priests last year.
Bergoglio's legacy as cardinal includes his efforts to repair the reputation of a church that lost many followers by failing to openly challenge Argentina's murderous 1976-83 dictatorship.
He also worked to recover the church's traditional political influence in society, but his outspoken criticism of President Cristina Kirchner couldn't stop her from imposing socially liberal measures that are anathema to the church, from gay marriage and adoption to free contraceptives for all.
"In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don't baptise the children of single mothers because they weren't conceived in the sanctity of marriage," Bergoglio told his priests. "These are today's hypocrites. Those who clericalise the Church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it's baptised!"
Bergoglio compared this concept of Catholicism, "this Church of `come inside so we make decisions and announcements between ourselves and those who don't come in, don't belong," to the Pharisees of Christ's time - people who congratulate themselves while condemning all others.
Where'd you get that from Orangeman as I'd like to send a copy of it to my local parish priest. As pious a man you wouldn't meet
Quote from: johnneycool on March 14, 2013, 03:49:50 PM
Where'd you get that from Orangeman as I'd like to send a copy of it to my local parish priest. As pious a man you wouldn't meet
There's a Profile piece on RTE's website and that is part of it.
Quote from: orangeman on March 14, 2013, 03:35:08 PM
I like this man already. Good luck and best wishes to him.
Bergoglio often rode the bus to work, cooked his own meals and regularly visited the slums that ring Argentina's capital.
He considers social outreach, rather than doctrinal battles, to be the essential business of the church.
He accused fellow church leaders of hypocrisy and forgetting that Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes.
"Jesus teaches us another way: Go out. Go out and share your testimony, go out and interact with your brothers, go out and share, go out and ask. Become the Word in body as well as spirit," Bergoglio told Argentina's priests last year.
Bergoglio's legacy as cardinal includes his efforts to repair the reputation of a church that lost many followers by failing to openly challenge Argentina's murderous 1976-83 dictatorship.
He also worked to recover the church's traditional political influence in society, but his outspoken criticism of President Cristina Kirchner couldn't stop her from imposing socially liberal measures that are anathema to the church, from gay marriage and adoption to free contraceptives for all.
"In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don't baptise the children of single mothers because they weren't conceived in the sanctity of marriage," Bergoglio told his priests. "These are today's hypocrites. Those who clericalise the Church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it's baptised!"
Bergoglio compared this concept of Catholicism, "this Church of `come inside so we make decisions and announcements between ourselves and those who don't come in, don't belong," to the Pharisees of Christ's time - people who congratulate themselves while condemning all others.
Last night, a limo arrived to take him to his place of rest for the night. Pope Francis refused the limo and instead took the bus, along with the rest of the Cardinals.
As a cycnical bastid with no Religion in me i wish him the best, from the things i've read about him i think he will be more radical than expected (radical obviously being relative in this case). I like his Social justice outlook.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 14, 2013, 10:50:11 AM
There was never going to be drastic changes within the Church, by the electing of a new Pope. However, in the election of Pope Francis, I believe we are at the beginning of a shift within the Catholic Church, which will lead onto more progressive changes over the years. That can only be welcomed.
For me, the main priorities of this new Pope, has to be the child abuse scandals. He has to deal with this with the upmost urgency. Plus, social injustices has to be up there too.
Has a familiar ring to it. I won't hold my breath.
The Brits are going mental on some of the comments for online news for Francis I, so far I have read "back off Brussels", the last one was a Nazi, this ones a fascist, lots of kiddy-fiddler comments, "bring back Henry VIII", hes nothing but an I-tie (Italian), we beat the French at Agincourt!!!!!, he will be in Dublin drinking a Guinness, we beat Napoleon!!!, send a few Falcons to Buenos Aires, refuel and hit Rome.... etc. etc. etc.
One of the most bizzare was something about the next Pope (after Francis) being either from one of those other countries that hates us (UK) "like North Korea or Australia" :o
A pleasant bunch aren't they.
Quote from: bennydorano on March 14, 2013, 04:50:15 PM
As a cycnical bastid with no Religion in me i wish him the best, from the things i've read about him i think he will be more radical than expected (radical obviously being relative in this case). I like his Social justice outlook.
Agree with all of this.
Plus I like a Cardinal who can publicly say this:
"In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don't baptise the children of single mothers because they weren't conceived in the sanctity of marriage," Bergoglio told his priests. "These are today's hypocrites. Those who clericalise the Church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it's baptised!"I am reminded of how we treated single mothers (Magdalene Laundries), babies who died unbaptised (were not allowed to be buried on consecrated ground - with their families) and of course the abused children (I'm thinking of a Cardinal who swore them to secrecy - Canon Law). The above sounds quite different to me.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 14, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
The Brits are going mental on some of the comments for online news for Francis I, so far I have read "back off Brussels", the last one was a Nazi, this ones a fascist, lots of kiddy-fiddler comments, "bring back Henry VIII", hes nothing but an I-tie (Italian), we beat the French at Agincourt!!!!!, he will be in Dublin drinking a Guinness, we beat Napoleon!!!, send a few Falcons to Buenos Aires, refuel and hit Rome.... etc. etc. etc.
One of the most bizzare was something about the next Pope (after Francis) being either from one of those other countries that hates us (UK) "like North Korea or Australia" :o
A pleasant bunch aren't they.
What forum are you reading - BNP? Viz online?
From the BBC:
QuotePope Francis has warned the Catholic Church would become "a compassionate NGO" without spiritual renewal.
In a Sistine Chapel Mass with cardinals on his first day as Church leader, the pontiff, 76, said: "If we do not confess to Christ what would we be?
"We would end up a compassionate NGO. What would happen would be like when children make sand castles and then it all falls down."
Francis is the first Latin American - and the first Jesuit - Pope,
Haha! Yes. God forbid if the catholic church should become a "compassionate NGO." The horror!
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 14, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
The Brits are going mental on some of the comments for online news for Francis I, so far I have read "back off Brussels", the last one was a Nazi, this ones a fascist, lots of kiddy-fiddler comments, "bring back Henry VIII", hes nothing but an I-tie (Italian), we beat the French at Agincourt!!!!!, he will be in Dublin drinking a Guinness, we beat Napoleon!!!, send a few Falcons to Buenos Aires, refuel and hit Rome.... etc. etc. etc.
One of the most bizzare was something about the next Pope (after Francis) being either from one of those other countries that hates us (UK) "like North Korea or Australia" :o
A pleasant bunch aren't they.
What were you doing reading the Rangers' supporters forum?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 14, 2013, 05:31:31 PM
From the BBC:
QuotePope Francis has warned the Catholic Church would become "a compassionate NGO" without spiritual renewal.
In a Sistine Chapel Mass with cardinals on his first day as Church leader, the pontiff, 76, said: "If we do not confess to Christ what would we be?
"We would end up a compassionate NGO. What would happen would be like when children make sand castles and then it all falls down."
Francis is the first Latin American - and the first Jesuit - Pope,
Haha! Yes. God forbid if the catholic church should become a "compassionate NGO." The horror!
He's saying it's more than just a Compassionate NGO.
Quote from: stew on March 14, 2013, 01:57:53 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 14, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
I am lifted by the things I have read and heard about the new pope. Best wishes to him and his term in office.
I wish I knew how to post shit on here from articles on the web, the Jesuit ceremony for new priests is interesting to say the least, to say the worst it is as Un-Christian a document as I have ever read.
they are not big on the aul reformers but at least they are a step up from the lowest of the low..........the Jews!
Anybody else find this last statement a bit dodgy? Totally uncalled-for IMO..
Quote from: muppet on March 14, 2013, 05:07:34 PM
Plus I like a Cardinal who can publicly say this: "In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don't baptise the children of single mothers because they weren't conceived in the sanctity of marriage," Bergoglio told his priests. "These are today's hypocrites. Those who clericalise the Church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it's baptised!"
Fine words indeed ....... comes across as 'human'. Lets see how vocal he is allowed to be now that he's pope.
My own gut feeling is that he is a PR choice. He's 76 ..... how many years does he have to be this force for change that people are hoping for?
Who believes that popes have a huge level of influence anyway? The puppet masters will still be running the show
Not sure what Stew means in his reference to the Jews, but it does sound decidely un-Kosher.
I thought the Cardinals would choose Geno Smith or Matt Barkley with their first pick. Bold move.
Does he have a big arm on him? He certainly doesn't look too mobile.
People can't honestly expect too much too soon. Let the man get in to the role first. I wish him the best. I think he can only be good for the Church.
Quote from: stew on March 14, 2013, 01:57:53 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 14, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
I am lifted by the things I have read and heard about the new pope. Best wishes to him and his term in office.
I wish I knew how to post shit on here from articles on the web, the Jesuit ceremony for new priests is interesting to say the least, to say the worst it is as Un-Christian a document as I have ever read.
they are not big on the aul reformers but at least they are a step up from the lowest of the low..........the Jews!
We have people bleating here about "sectarianism" in insults traded between people of the same background in a football match, but this casual outburst passes almost without comment here.
Ah, that's just our Stew. The Spitman.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 14, 2013, 08:46:36 PM
People can't honestly expect too much too soon. Let the man get in to the role first. I wish him the best. I think he can only be good for the Church.
I agree, two millennia after a delusional Nazzarenu carpenter's son started his own cult, we are still waiting.
Quote from: Hardy on March 14, 2013, 09:30:10 PM
Quote from: stew on March 14, 2013, 01:57:53 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 14, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
I am lifted by the things I have read and heard about the new pope. Best wishes to him and his term in office.
I wish I knew how to post shit on here from articles on the web, the Jesuit ceremony for new priests is interesting to say the least, to say the worst it is as Un-Christian a document as I have ever read.
they are not big on the aul reformers but at least they are a step up from the lowest of the low..........the Jews!
We have people bleating here about "sectarianism" in insults traded between people of the same background in a football match, but this casual outburst passes almost without comment here.
I though he was quoting someone else.
The more I read of him the more I like him. I wish him all the best in his mission.
What will he do with his return ticket to Argentina?
Would the airline give him his money back?
Was wondering about the practicalities of it all ... so I assume he has loads of personal stuff back at his former abode in Argentina, and I'm sure he fully expected to be heading back home this week ... would he not go on a private flying visit to collect whatever stuff he wants to take, say goodbye to friends etc. It's some amount of change to come to terms with, and him 76.
He came second last time out. I'm sure he's went over the practicalities involved more than a few times in the last decade.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 14, 2013, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 14, 2013, 09:30:10 PM
Quote from: stew on March 14, 2013, 01:57:53 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 14, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
I am lifted by the things I have read and heard about the new pope. Best wishes to him and his term in office.
I wish I knew how to post shit on here from articles on the web, the Jesuit ceremony for new priests is interesting to say the least, to say the worst it is as Un-Christian a document as I have ever read.
they are not big on the aul reformers but at least they are a step up from the lowest of the low..........the Jews!
We have people bleating here about "sectarianism" in insults traded between people of the same background in a football match, but this casual outburst passes almost without comment here.
I though he was quoting someone else.
I assume stew is referring to the made up "Jesuit Oath" which appears on numerous conspiracy nut websites.
Here is one example http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit
I am not sure who this "Ian Paisley" person is but he seems to be a loon.
Quote from: balladmaker on March 14, 2013, 11:43:01 PM
Was wondering about the practicalities of it all ... so I assume he has loads of personal stuff back at his former abode in Argentina, and I'm sure he fully expected to be heading back home this week ... would he not go on a private flying visit to collect whatever stuff he wants to take, say goodbye to friends etc. It's some amount of change to come to terms with, and him 76.
If he's a jesuit with their vow of poverty etc, then it could all be packed up in a carboard box and sent to the Vatican once the CIA have a hoke through it. 8)
Quote from: dec on March 15, 2013, 02:37:18 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 14, 2013, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 14, 2013, 09:30:10 PM
Quote from: stew on March 14, 2013, 01:57:53 PM
Quote from: Orior on March 14, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
I am lifted by the things I have read and heard about the new pope. Best wishes to him and his term in office.
I wish I knew how to post shit on here from articles on the web, the Jesuit ceremony for new priests is interesting to say the least, to say the worst it is as Un-Christian a document as I have ever read.
they are not big on the aul reformers but at least they are a step up from the lowest of the low..........the Jews!
We have people bleating here about "sectarianism" in insults traded between people of the same background in a football match, but this casual outburst passes almost without comment here.
I though he was quoting someone else.
I assume stew is referring to the made up "Jesuit Oath" which appears on numerous conspiracy nut websites.
Here is one example http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit
I am not sure who this "Ian Paisley" person is but he seems to be a loon.
OK - I wasn't aware of that context, so I beg his pardon. An ould quotation mark or two would have prevented a simpleton like me falling into the trap.
If the Jesuits take vows against poverty and accepting high clerical appointments, does this mean Frank has broken his vows?
QuoteIf he's a jesuit with their vow of poverty etc, then it could all be packed up in a carboard box and sent to the Vatican once the CIA have a hoke through it.
Just because he is poor doesn't mean that he doesn't have a giant poster of Maradona.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 15, 2013, 11:36:03 AM
QuoteIf he's a jesuit with their vow of poverty etc, then it could all be packed up in a carboard box and sent to the Vatican once the CIA have a hoke through it.
Just because he is poor doesn't mean that he doesn't have a giant poster of Maradona.
Maradonna is a materialist, whereas Che Guevara, he shunned the materialistic lifestyle for a life of insurrection and revolution in the America's so his tee shirt will be in the box for sure.
Definitely like this man already
Pope Francis and the Falkland Islands dispute
In comments attributed to the pope he paid tribute to 'usurped' Argentinians who wanted to 'claim the country that is theirs' during the Falklands War.
By Rebecca Lewis | Yahoo! News – Thu, Mar 14, 2013
AFP/AFPTV - Argentinian cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became the first ever pope from the Americas in the history of the Church, taking the papal name of Francis I, the Vatican said on Wednesday.
Pope Francis, who was born in Buenos Aires and is the first pontiff from Latin America, once told a congregation to "Go and kiss this land which is ours, and seem to us far away" when referring to the Falklands, it is reported today.
Speaking at a service for fallen soldiers, before visiting an Argentine cemetery in the Falklands in 2009, the then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio said: "There are angels who will accompany you, who are sons, husbands and fathers of yours, who fell there, in an almost religious movement, of kissing with their blood the native soil," reports The Daily Telegraph, from comments recorded by news agency Diarias y Noticias.
Now known as Pope Francis, the remarks were not the first time the son of Italian immigrants had waded into the row over the disputed islands.
In a mass in Buenos Aires last year to mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War, he told veterans and their families Britain was a "usurper" of the contentious islands, according to The Daily Telegraph.
He apparently said: "We come to pray for those who have fallen, sons of the homeland who set out to defend his mother, the homeland, to claim the country that is theirs and they were usurped."
The first Pope from Latin America is said to have told the families of the 649 Argentinians who died in the conflict to remember those who had fallen.
He added: "Many young people were there and could not return. Others returned but none could forget.
"Many scars, many families destroyed by permanent absence or a return cut short. The country needs to remember them all."
"The country cannot exclude from its memory any of those who were called; it has to take care of so many hearts with scars and say thank you, to those who remained on the islands or submerged in water, all of them.
"The country should recognise their scars."
His election came a day after Falkland islanders voted 99.8per cent in favour of retaining British sovereignty in a referendum.
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 15, 2013, 12:01:30 PM
Definitely like this man already
Pope Francis and the Falkland Islands dispute
In comments attributed to the pope he paid tribute to 'usurped' Argentinians who wanted to 'claim the country that is theirs' during the Falklands War.
By Rebecca Lewis | Yahoo! News – Thu, Mar 14, 2013
AFP/AFPTV - Argentinian cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became the first ever pope from the Americas in the history of the Church, taking the papal name of Francis I, the Vatican said on Wednesday.
Pope Francis, who was born in Buenos Aires and is the first pontiff from Latin America, once told a congregation to "Go and kiss this land which is ours, and seem to us far away" when referring to the Falklands, it is reported today.
Speaking at a service for fallen soldiers, before visiting an Argentine cemetery in the Falklands in 2009, the then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio said: "There are angels who will accompany you, who are sons, husbands and fathers of yours, who fell there, in an almost religious movement, of kissing with their blood the native soil," reports The Daily Telegraph, from comments recorded by news agency Diarias y Noticias.
Now known as Pope Francis, the remarks were not the first time the son of Italian immigrants had waded into the row over the disputed islands.
In a mass in Buenos Aires last year to mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War, he told veterans and their families Britain was a "usurper" of the contentious islands, according to The Daily Telegraph.
He apparently said: "We come to pray for those who have fallen, sons of the homeland who set out to defend his mother, the homeland, to claim the country that is theirs and they were usurped."
The first Pope from Latin America is said to have told the families of the 649 Argentinians who died in the conflict to remember those who had fallen.
He added: "Many young people were there and could not return. Others returned but none could forget.
"Many scars, many families destroyed by permanent absence or a return cut short. The country needs to remember them all."
"The country cannot exclude from its memory any of those who were called; it has to take care of so many hearts with scars and say thank you, to those who remained on the islands or submerged in water, all of them.
"The country should recognise their scars."
His election came a day after Falkland islanders voted 99.8per cent in favour of retaining British sovereignty in a referendum.
We can give him a pass, as he said this prior to his election as the Pope of Rome. Yet as the Roman Pope surely his position is seperate from nationalistic politics, English Pope Adrian IV is one man that could have kept out of national allegiance politics.
Always wondered why the Argies dont play the long game with the Falklands - with a policy of emmigration to populate it with sympathisers. Surely the British couldn't deny them the right to settle?
Quote from: bennydorano on March 15, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
Always wondered why the Argies dont play the long game with the Falklands - with a policy of emmigration to populate it with sympathisers. Surely the British couldn't deny them the right to settle?
Sort of like what the Israelis are doing in the West Bank?
Quote from: dec on March 15, 2013, 07:55:07 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 15, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
Always wondered why the Argies dont play the long game with the Falklands - with a policy of emmigration to populate it with sympathisers. Surely the British couldn't deny them the right to settle?
Sort of like what the Israelis are doing in the West Bank?
The Falklands have very restrictive migration rules as far as I understand. It seems they tend to prefer U.K. passport holders, and I think as they are outside the E.U. do not have to allow other E.U. citizens in. How about 5,000 of you lot from up North try a shot at moving there.
too old way to old. the only way back for the catholic faith is for jesus to be the next pope and he'd need to be on youtube every night curing the sick and cracking jokes, basically its over they're circuling the plughole. any how i doubt this guy will make any difference at all. as for the pomp and the smoke its like something out of the wazard of az
Quote from: dec on March 15, 2013, 07:55:07 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 15, 2013, 07:25:27 PM
Always wondered why the Argies dont play the long game with the Falklands - with a policy of emmigration to populate it with sympathisers. Surely the British couldn't deny them the right to settle?
Sort of like what the Israelis are doing in the West Bank?
Wow, that's some analogy!
Easier to achieve in Falklands, what was there - 1,500 votes in the referendum.
Do you find it morally repugnant (in a non Middle -East context?) As it seems a bit of a leap to equate the Falklands circumstances to that clusterfuck.
Quote from: lawnseed on March 15, 2013, 08:36:57 PM
as for the pomp and the smoke its like something out of the wazard of az (sic)
You have to hand it to them, it's a sign that they can have a flair for the dramatic when they put their minds to it. If only the repetitive monotony of mass were as interesting, but then I suppose the repetitiveness of mass is kinda the whole point of it.
One thing I did like about the announcement the other night is that the world didn't t know the identity until it was officially announced from the balcony
Usually big announcements are leaked to the media well before hand!!!
Quote from: Gaffer on March 16, 2013, 08:25:34 AM
One thing I did like about the announcement the other night is that the world didn't t know the identity until it was officially announced from the balcony
Usually big announcements are leaked to the media well before hand!!!
Indeed, Channel 4 were saying it was Cardinal Angelo Scola, as the bells in Milan were ringing and RTE said it was Cardinal Odilo Scherer, because Brazilian flags went up everywhere.
Interesting the sources of the immediate attacks on the new Pope.
The Argentine Government are attacking him for not standing up to the Junta. It should be pointed out he wasn't even a bishop until they had been toppled.
Then the British media are attacking him while mentioning, on an apparently unrelated issue, that he supports The Malvinas for Argentina.
I like him already.
Did anyone notice what appeared to be a TV blunder the other night before he actually came out onto the balcony ... the TV images cut to a clip of him inside making his way to the balcony? Was only on for a split second.
I like him, seems a decent, down to earth sort, just as a Pope should be IMO.
I definitely like what I have seen and heard of him so far too.
Although he was 2nd in line the last time around he was not Rome's choice for Pope but the reformer's choice who were looking for a sheriff to come in and clean some things up. They got their man and that why the World was quite surprised. The Cardinals are divided into groups and normally based on the sheer number of Cardinals in Rome, the Romans tend to sway the vote but it didn't go the way they wanted this time around. Maybe the Holy Spirit showed up, who knows, but either way we have a man who can clean some things up and I am happy about that.
Whatever happens will take time. He won't be afforded that time by the begrudgers on here or around the world but that is what is needed. Glad to see some of you showing some common sense and decency. Some of the comments on here have been atrocious too though in fairness.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2013, 01:07:05 PM
I definitely like what I have seen and heard of him so far too.
Although he was 2nd in line the last time around he was not Rome's choice for Pope but the reformer's choice who were looking for a sheriff to come in and clean some things up. They got their man and that why the World was quite surprised. The Cardinals are divided into groups and normally based on the sheer number of Cardinals in Rome, the Romans tend to sway the vote but it didn't go the way they wanted this time around. Maybe the Holy Spirit showed up, who knows, but either way we have a man who can clean some things up and I am happy about that.
Whatever happens will take time. He won't be afforded that time by the begrudgers on here or around the world but that is what is needed. Glad to see some of you showing some common sense and decency. Some of the comments on here have been atrocious too though in fairness.
+1
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2013, 01:07:05 PM
I definitely like what I have seen and heard of him so far too.
Although he was 2nd in line the last time around he was not Rome's choice for Pope but the reformer's choice who were looking for a sheriff to come in and clean some things up. They got their man and that why the World was quite surprised. The Cardinals are divided into groups and normally based on the sheer number of Cardinals in Rome, the Romans tend to sway the vote but it didn't go the way they wanted this time around. Maybe the Holy Spirit showed up, who knows, but either way we have a man who can clean some things up and I am happy about that.
Whatever happens will take time. He won't be afforded that time by the begrudgers on here or around the world but that is what is needed. Glad to see some of you showing some common sense and decency. Some of the comments on here have been atrocious too though in fairness.
I doubt it.
Quote from: Gaffer on March 16, 2013, 08:25:34 AM
One thing I did like about the announcement the other night is that the world didn't t know the identity until it was officially announced from the balcony
Usually big announcements are leaked to the media well before hand!!!
Didn't you know the RC church are master at keeping secrets? :)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2013, 01:07:05 PM
Whatever happens will take time. He won't be afforded that time by the begrudgers on here or around the world but that is what is needed. Glad to see some of you showing some common sense and decency. Some of the comments on here have been atrocious too though in fairness.
If the RC church do reform (whatever that means) it'll be because of the begrudgers you show such distain for whereas people like you would scrape and bow for an eternity regardless
Quote from: theskull1 on March 16, 2013, 04:07:35 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on March 16, 2013, 08:25:34 AM
One thing I did like about the announcement the other night is that the world didn't t know the identity until it was officially announced from the balcony
Usually big announcements are leaked to the media well before hand!!!
Didn't you know the RC church are master at keeping secrets? :)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2013, 01:07:05 PM
Whatever happens will take time. He won't be afforded that time by the begrudgers on here or around the world but that is what is needed. Glad to see some of you showing some common sense and decency. Some of the comments on here have been atrocious too though in fairness.
If the RC church do reform (whatever that means) it'll be because of the begrudgers you show such sustain for whereas people like you would scrape and bow for an eternity regardless
Really? I'd say they're pretty useless.
If the RC church do reform (whatever that means) it'll be because of the begrudgers you show such sustain for whereas people like you would scrape and bow for an eternity regardless
[/quote]
Think you mean Disdain, And if the Church does reform, it wont be as a result of the GAAboard contributors who use every chance to slate it, I get the sense that a lot of people who slate the church would never really have been regular church goers anyways. Having said that the Church has lost moral authority for a lot of people, especially in Ireland. However I cant imagine there will be enough reform to alleviate the wrongs they have done.
People loose their faith in a deity and/or a faith group for a multitude of reasons. The child abuse cover up just highlights the RC churchs moral corruption as an institution. One should not discount the power of the butterfly affect in bringing about change. We're doing our bit
Quote from: theskull1 on March 16, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
People loose their faith in a deity and/or a faith group for a multitude of reasons. The child abuse cover up just highlights the RC churchs moral corruption as an institution. One should not discount the power of the butterfly affect in bringing about change. We're doing our bit
When you say "we're doing our bit" does it give you satisfaction to see people loose their faith?
I am no lover of the Church, far from it, but luckily i don't need a church to keep my faith, however not everyone can feel the same. I could take no joy in seeing so many people loose their faith, no matter what religion it may be.
Satisfaction isn't a driving motivation. Calling the RC hierarchy for what they are (I.e.morally bankrupt) needs to get said. It may be a force for good in many local areas but the ugly underbelly will always be there
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 16, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
...I could take no joy in seeing so many people loose lose their faith...
I could.
You seem like a delightful person
Just enlighten me as to why you've a problem with eamonnca1s reply TE?
I think you're jumping to conclusions far too early
That he would take joy in watching people lose their faith
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 12:49:42 AM
That he would take joy in watching people lose their faith
I know that already...I was interested in your thinking as to why YOU believe this makes eamonnca1 a less than delightful person? Could it be that you need to open you mind to the fact that there are very decent athiests out there who genuinely have there own belief system as such. If they can persuade others to think likewise, please explain why that makes them 'non delightful'
Seriously I want to know
Skull, only the religious are allowed to think that they have the belief system that should be adopted by others. If you proselytize for religion then fair play to you for doing a great job. If you proselytize against it then you're an arrogant, intolerant, aggressive secularist. Get with the program!
When you look at the number of people getting killed year in year out over religion, I happen to think that we'd be better off with a bit less belief in the invisible man in the sky. So I say again, the more people lose their faith the better.
Faith is the most overrated belief system ever. Believing something without evidence for it is such a ridiculous concept that I'm damned if I know why it's still considered a virtue in this day and age.
Faith isn't merely a Religious concept though, is it ridiculous in all it's guises? We've all faith in something or other.
This new Pope will not go down well among the hierarchy. There will be a lot of nervous men around Rome ( and the world ) at the minute -
I'm liking this man more and more -
Pope Francis has said that the church should be poor and remember that its mission is to serve the poor.
The pope made his comments in an audience for journalists this morning.
He explained why he chose to take the name Francis, after St Francis of Assisi, a symbol of peace, austerity and poverty.
He called Francis "the man who gives us this spirit of peace, the poor man", and added: "Oh, how I would like a poor church, and for the poor."
Since his election on Wednesday as the first non-European pope in nearly 1,300 years, Francis has signalled a sharp change of style from his predecessor, Benedict.
He has laid out a clear moral path for the 1.2-billion-member church, which is beset by scandals, intrigue and strife.
He thanked the thousands of journalists who had covered his election but invited them to "always try to better understand the true nature of the church, and even its journey in the world, with its virtues and with its sins".
He urged journalists to seek "truth, goodness and beauty" in the world and in the church.
Francis has set a forceful moral tone and given clear signs already that he will bring a new broom to the crisis-hit papacy, favouring humility and simplicity over pomp and grandeur.
He recalled how on Wednesday night, as he was receiving more and more votes in the conclave, the cardinal sitting next to him, Claudio Hummes of Brazil, comforted him "as the situation became dangerous".
After the voting reached the two-thirds majority that elected him, applause broke out.
Cardinal Hummes, 78, then hugged and kissed him and told him: "Don't forget the poor", the pope recounted, often gesturing with his hands.
"That word entered here," he added, pointing to his head.
While the formal voting continued, the pope recalled: "I thought of wars .... and Francis (of Assisi) is the man of peace, and that is how the name entered my heart, Francis of Assisi, for me he is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and protects others."
It was the latest indication that the pope wanted the worldwide church to take on an austere style.
On the night he was elected he shunned the papal limousine and travelled on a bus with other cardinals. He went to the church-run hotel where he had been staying before the conclave and insisted on paying the bill.
Francis, the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, has also urged Argentines not to make costly trips to Rome to see him but to give the money to the poor instead.
Read in the Sindo the Vatican lads haves 'accidentally' invested 23m Euro in a gay sauna. These bucks don't help themselves much.
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 16, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 16, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
People loose their faith in a deity and/or a faith group for a multitude of reasons. The child abuse cover up just highlights the RC churchs moral corruption as an institution. One should not discount the power of the butterfly affect in bringing about change. We're doing our bit
When you say "we're doing our bit" does it give you satisfaction to see people loose their faith?
I am no lover of the Church, far from it, but luckily i don't need a church to keep my faith, however not everyone can feel the same. I could take no joy in seeing so many people loose their faith, no matter what religion it may be.
What difference does it make to you if people lose their faith?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 16, 2013, 10:57:12 PM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 16, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
...I could take no joy in seeing so many people loose lose their faith...
I could.
You sound like quite the lowlife.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 17, 2013, 02:11:11 AM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 12:49:42 AM
That he would take joy in watching people lose their faith
I know that already...I was interested in your thinking as to why YOU believe this makes eamonnca1 a less than delightful person? Could it be that you need to open you mind to the fact that there are very decent athiests out there who genuinely have there own belief system as such. If they can persuade others to think likewise, please explain why that makes them 'non delightful'
Seriously I want to know
I know that there are decent atheist out there, and everybody has the right to believe or not believe in whatever they want, I don't go around ramming my beliefs down other people throats, I don't believe that is right, however neither are atheists who go round ramming their non-beliefs down peoples throats. If satisfaction isn't the motivating factor then what is?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 17, 2013, 03:00:55 AM
Skull, only the religious are allowed to think that they have the belief system that should be adopted by others. If you proselytize for religion then fair play to you for doing a great job. If you proselytize against it then you're an arrogant, intolerant, aggressive secularist. Get with the program!
When you look at the number of people getting killed year in year out over religion, I happen to think that we'd be better off with a bit less belief in the invisible man in the sky. So I say again, the more people lose their faith the better.
Faith is the most overrated belief system ever. Believing something without evidence for it is such a ridiculous concept that I'm damned if I know why it's still considered a virtue in this day and age.
That's your opinion, I agree that there have been many people killed over religion, however i think the morals and social order it set within society greatly makes up for that. I'm not here to change someones opinion on religion, i would take no joy even if you did regain your faith, its entirely a private matter, however I cant comprehend why someone would take joy in watching a person lose their faith.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 16, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 16, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
People loose their faith in a deity and/or a faith group for a multitude of reasons. The child abuse cover up just highlights the RC churchs moral corruption as an institution. One should not discount the power of the butterfly affect in bringing about change. We're doing our bit
When you say "we're doing our bit" does it give you satisfaction to see people loose their faith?
I am no lover of the Church, far from it, but luckily i don't need a church to keep my faith, however not everyone can feel the same. I could take no joy in seeing so many people loose their faith, no matter what religion it may be.
What difference does it make to you if people lose their faith?
it doesn't make a difference, I just find it unpleasant to see others ramming their views down other peoples throats. everyone has the ability and the right to make their own mind up!
Quote from: orangeman on March 17, 2013, 09:42:59 AM
This new Pope will not go down well among the hierarchy. There will be a lot of nervous men around Rome ( and the world ) at the minute -
Indeed but I suspect not the men you have in mind. The problem for Francis as I see it is that those most supportive of his humble, 'man of the people' approach with an austere Mass, are the same post-Vatican II tie-dye, hippy Bishops and Cardinals that have been complicit in the corruption and scandals.
For example, look at this Cardinals Twitter feed:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cXn0frBQqtw/UUSrG0ygAHI/AAAAAAAABD0/W5Mf7hYRWM8/s1600/MahonyTweets.jpg)
This from a man, head of a diocese that paid out $10million the other day to settle abuse claims because he sheltered the abusers. The same man who spent over $200 million on this monstrosity:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Lacathedral.jpg)
One of the main power brokers in the election of Francis was Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals, a man notorious for his Machiavellian manoeuvres within the Vatican, has blocked abuse cases coming to light and who once described abuse claims as "petty gossip".
Pope Francis is an outsider to the Curia and Vatican and as such doesn't know who are the ones needing cleared out. As such he'll be relying on the likes of Sodano who strangely enough has also been calling for reform of the Curia recently.
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 16, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 16, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
People loose their faith in a deity and/or a faith group for a multitude of reasons. The child abuse cover up just highlights the RC churchs moral corruption as an institution. One should not discount the power of the butterfly affect in bringing about change. We're doing our bit
When you say "we're doing our bit" does it give you satisfaction to see people loose their faith?
I am no lover of the Church, far from it, but luckily i don't need a church to keep my faith, however not everyone can feel the same. I could take no joy in seeing so many people loose their faith, no matter what religion it may be.
What difference does it make to you if people lose their faith?
it doesn't make a difference, I just find it unpleasant to see others ramming their views down other peoples throats. everyone has the ability and the right to make their own mind up!
Those missionaries must really sicken you.
What is that Ulick? A church?
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 01:01:26 PM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 16, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 16, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
People loose their faith in a deity and/or a faith group for a multitude of reasons. The child abuse cover up just highlights the RC churchs moral corruption as an institution. One should not discount the power of the butterfly affect in bringing about change. We're doing our bit
When you say "we're doing our bit" does it give you satisfaction to see people loose their faith?
I am no lover of the Church, far from it, but luckily i don't need a church to keep my faith, however not everyone can feel the same. I could take no joy in seeing so many people loose their faith, no matter what religion it may be.
What difference does it make to you if people lose their faith?
it doesn't make a difference, I just find it unpleasant to see others ramming their views down other peoples throats. everyone has the ability and the right to make their own mind up!
Those missionaries must really sicken you.
I have no time for them
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 01:06:34 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 01:01:26 PM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 16, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 16, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
People loose their faith in a deity and/or a faith group for a multitude of reasons. The child abuse cover up just highlights the RC churchs moral corruption as an institution. One should not discount the power of the butterfly affect in bringing about change. We're doing our bit
When you say "we're doing our bit" does it give you satisfaction to see people loose their faith?
I am no lover of the Church, far from it, but luckily i don't need a church to keep my faith, however not everyone can feel the same. I could take no joy in seeing so many people loose their faith, no matter what religion it may be.
What difference does it make to you if people lose their faith?
it doesn't make a difference, I just find it unpleasant to see others ramming their views down other peoples throats. everyone has the ability and the right to make their own mind up!
Those missionaries must really sicken you.
I have no time for them
Not to mention those parents indoctrinating their children before they're old enough to make their own mind up, eh?
The indoctirnation argument holds no water with me, i'm sure 99% of heathens on here were brought up RC & have found their merry way to athiesim ok.
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 01:43:47 PM
The indoctirnation argument holds no water with me, i'm sure 99% of heathens on here were brought up RC & have found their merry way to athiesim ok.
What % of Catholics here weren't raised as such? How many were raised without religion or with a different religion?
Quote from: muppet on March 17, 2013, 01:02:51 PM
What is that Ulick? A church?
COLA
http://www.arcspace.com/features/rafael-moneo/cathedral-of-our-lady-of-the-angels/ (http://www.arcspace.com/features/rafael-moneo/cathedral-of-our-lady-of-the-angels/)
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 01:49:27 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 01:43:47 PM
The indoctirnation argument holds no water with me, i'm sure 99% of heathens on here were brought up RC & have found their merry way to athiesim ok.
What % of Catholics here weren't raised as such? How many were raised without religion or with a different religion?
No idea, nor do you. What point are you trying to make?
Quote from: tyrone exile link=topic=22888.msg1211554#msg1211554atheists who go round ramming their non-beliefs down peoples throats
How do you ram a non-belief down somebody's throat? To say "I don't believe that" is somehow a form of aggression?
The inquisition is over. You can't force people to believe something these days.
Quote from: Hardy on March 17, 2013, 05:33:05 PM
Quote from: tyrone exile link=topic=22888.msg1211554#msg1211554atheists who go round ramming their non-beliefs down peoples throats
How do you ram a non-belief down somebody's throat? To say "I don't believe that" is somehow a form of aggression?
The inquisition is over. You can't force people to believe something these days.
But he didn't just say "I don't believe that" and you know it.
Who is "he"?
I was taking issue with the concept of "ramming" a non-belief "down peoples throats". I don't think that's possible.
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 05:12:47 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 01:49:27 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 01:43:47 PM
The indoctirnation argument holds no water with me, i'm sure 99% of heathens on here were brought up RC & have found their merry way to athiesim ok.
What % of Catholics here weren't raised as such? How many were raised without religion or with a different religion?
No idea, nor do you. What point are you trying to make?
Is it not clear? Forget about people on the board then. Think about Catholics you know - how many of them were raised as such? I know a lot of Catholics - I don't know any who became Catholic as an adult, having been raised in another religion or with no religion.
QuoteI don't know any who became Catholic as an adult, having been raised in another religion or with no religion.[/quote
Seriously - There are a fair few around where I live - usually baptised at the Easter vigil
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 17, 2013, 02:12:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 17, 2013, 01:02:51 PM
What is that Ulick? A church?
COLA
http://www.arcspace.com/features/rafael-moneo/cathedral-of-our-lady-of-the-angels/ (http://www.arcspace.com/features/rafael-moneo/cathedral-of-our-lady-of-the-angels/)
It is hideous.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 08:16:51 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 05:12:47 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 01:49:27 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 01:43:47 PM
The indoctirnation argument holds no water with me, i'm sure 99% of heathens on here were brought up RC & have found their merry way to athiesim ok.
What % of Catholics here weren't raised as such? How many were raised without religion or with a different religion?
No idea, nor do you. What point are you trying to make?
Is it not clear? Forget about people on the board then. Think about Catholics you know - how many of them were raised as such? I know a lot of Catholics - I don't know any who became Catholic as an adult, having been raised in another religion or with no religion.
Ah right, that makes more sense, but that thinking could be applied to any Religion, you're making huge assumptions that cant be proven.
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 08:48:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 08:16:51 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 05:12:47 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 01:49:27 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 01:43:47 PM
The indoctirnation argument holds no water with me, i'm sure 99% of heathens on here were brought up RC & have found their merry way to athiesim ok.
What % of Catholics here weren't raised as such? How many were raised without religion or with a different religion?
No idea, nor do you. What point are you trying to make?
Is it not clear? Forget about people on the board then. Think about Catholics you know - how many of them were raised as such? I know a lot of Catholics - I don't know any who became Catholic as an adult, having been raised in another religion or with no religion.
Ah right, that makes more sense, but that thinking could be applied to any Religion, you're making huge assumptions that cant be proven.
That in a nutshell sums up most religions.
What gets me is that I've yet to receive a satisfactorily convincing answer as to why someone believes in any particular religion without descending into gobbledygook.
I thought Bertie might. - He didn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhvNIOUmCJk
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 08:48:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 08:16:51 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 05:12:47 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 17, 2013, 01:49:27 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 17, 2013, 01:43:47 PM
The indoctirnation argument holds no water with me, i'm sure 99% of heathens on here were brought up RC & have found their merry way to athiesim ok.
What % of Catholics here weren't raised as such? How many were raised without religion or with a different religion?
No idea, nor do you. What point are you trying to make?
Is it not clear? Forget about people on the board then. Think about Catholics you know - how many of them were raised as such? I know a lot of Catholics - I don't know any who became Catholic as an adult, having been raised in another religion or with no religion.
Ah right, that makes more sense, but that thinking could be applied to any Religion, you're making huge assumptions that cant be proven.
Indeed, apply indoctrination to any religion - I only used Catholicism because it's local.
Quote from: hardstation on March 17, 2013, 09:32:22 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 17, 2013, 09:12:41 PM
What gets me is that I've yet to receive a satisfactorily convincing answer as to why someone believes in any particular religion without descending into gobbledygook.
I thought Bertie might. - He didn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhvNIOUmCJk
Because their ma and da dragged them every Sunday. Because their school made them. Because by the time anyone is old enough to think about it for themselves they are already deeply rooted (through sacrements etc) in the religion that their surroundings decided for them.
My da used to tell me that I shouldn't start a sentence with because. He also told me that I have to go to mass so I'm not sure I trust him.
All true.
I send my children to a catholic school because it's a great school and it's local. They are currently going through the whole First Confession (guilt trip extreme) stuff. I struggle trying to buy into it for them but I cannot be preaching a different message from what they heard earlier in the day. So I treat it as another form of Santa Claus. I'm looking forward to the day when I can set them down and explain all the religions of the world and how they're free to choose to look into whatever suits them or none at all.
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 17, 2013, 11:25:06 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 16, 2013, 10:57:12 PM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 16, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
...I could take no joy in seeing so many people loose lose their faith...
I could.
You sound like quite the lowlife.
Ouch. That hurts. That is like a dagger through my heart. ::)
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
That's your opinion,
Of course it's my opinion. Wo else's opinion would it be?
QuoteI agree that there have been many people killed over religion, however i think the morals and social order it set within society greatly makes up for that. I'm not here to change someones opinion on religion, i would take no joy even if you did regain your faith, its entirely a private matter, however I cant comprehend why someone would take joy in watching a person lose their faith.
When people believe without evidence then it leads to all manner of ignorance and superstition like homeopathy, horoscopes, and homophobia. Newspapers have a daily section dedicated to horoscopes but not a section dedicated to science in which people could learn about how stuff actually works. Faith holds humanity back. If it weren't for faith we'd have a base on the moon by now with thousands of people living on it, and we'd probably have landed people on Mars.
And I reject your argument that faith is responsible for social order in society. Even most religious people get their morals from the same place as I do, from experience, discussion and from society. If they got it from that silly book that was written by middle eastern goat herders who thought the earth was flat then we'd be stoning people to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
Quote from: hardstation on March 17, 2013, 09:47:03 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 17, 2013, 08:15:39 PM
Who is "he"?
I was taking issue with the concept of "ramming" a non-belief "down peoples throats". I don't think that's possible.
We can't employ you, ye nut! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294472/You-work-youll-upset-atheists-What-hotel-told-jobseeker-discovering-committed-Christian.html)
Yer man should be victimised for his "look" not his religion.
Quote from: ONeill on March 17, 2013, 09:46:20 PM
I'm looking forward to the day when I can set them down and explain all the religions of the world and how they're free to choose to look into whatever suits them or none at all.
Why not just do it now?
To re-iterate:
QuoteA DAY ahead of the papal conclave, faces at the scandal-struck Vatican were even redder than usual after it emerged that the Holy See had purchased a €23 million share of a Rome apartment block that houses Europe's biggest gay sauna.
The senior Vatican figure sweating the most due to the unlikely proximity of the gay Europa Multiclub is probably Cardinal Ivan Dias, the head of the Congregation for Evangelisation of Peoples, who is due to participate in tomorrow's election at the Sistine Chapel.
This 76-year-old "prince of the church" enjoys a 12-room apartment on the first-floor of the imposing palazzo, at 2 Via Carducci, just yards from the ground floor entrance to the steamy flesh pot. There are 18 other Vatican apartments in the block, many of which house priests.
The Holy See is still reeling from allegations that the previous pontiff, Benedict XVI, had quit in reaction to the presence of a gay cabal in the curia.
And with disgraced Scottish cardinal Keith O'Brien lending new weight to charges of hypocrisy against the Church's stance on homosexuality, La Repubblica newspaper noted that the presence of "Italy's best known gay sauna in the premises is an embarrassment".
Cardinal Dias, who is seen as a social conservative even by the current standards of the church hierarchy, is no doubt horrified to learn of the activities taking place a floor below.
It is not known, however, if the former archbishop of Bombay has popped downstairs to give spitiual guidances to the clients of the Europa Multiclub, given his belief that gays and lesbians can be cured of their "unnatural tendencies" through the "sacrement of penance".
The sauna's website promotes one of its special "bear nights", with a video in which a rotund, hairy man strips down before changing into a priest's outfit. It says Bruno, "a hairy, overweight pastor of souls, is free to the music of his clergyman, remaining in a thong, because he wants to expose body and soul".
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/catholic-officials-break-into-a-sweat-over-23m-investment-in-gay-sauna-29122918.html
The first scandal of any Popehood is always the, err, gayest?
Quote from: Syferus on March 18, 2013, 03:12:03 AM
To re-iterate:
QuoteA DAY ahead of the papal conclave, faces at the scandal-struck Vatican were even redder than usual after it emerged that the Holy See had purchased a €23 million share of a Rome apartment block that houses Europe's biggest gay sauna.
The senior Vatican figure sweating the most due to the unlikely proximity of the gay Europa Multiclub is probably Cardinal Ivan Dias, the head of the Congregation for Evangelisation of Peoples, who is due to participate in tomorrow's election at the Sistine Chapel.
This 76-year-old "prince of the church" enjoys a 12-room apartment on the first-floor of the imposing palazzo, at 2 Via Carducci, just yards from the ground floor entrance to the steamy flesh pot. There are 18 other Vatican apartments in the block, many of which house priests.
The Holy See is still reeling from allegations that the previous pontiff, Benedict XVI, had quit in reaction to the presence of a gay cabal in the curia.
And with disgraced Scottish cardinal Keith O'Brien lending new weight to charges of hypocrisy against the Church's stance on homosexuality, La Repubblica newspaper noted that the presence of "Italy's best known gay sauna in the premises is an embarrassment".
Cardinal Dias, who is seen as a social conservative even by the current standards of the church hierarchy, is no doubt horrified to learn of the activities taking place a floor below.
It is not known, however, if the former archbishop of Bombay has popped downstairs to give spitiual guidances to the clients of the Europa Multiclub, given his belief that gays and lesbians can be cured of their "unnatural tendencies" through the "sacrement of penance".
The sauna's website promotes one of its special "bear nights", with a video in which a rotund, hairy man strips down before changing into a priest's outfit. It says Bruno, "a hairy, overweight pastor of souls, is free to the music of his clergyman, remaining in a thong, because he wants to expose body and soul".
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/catholic-officials-break-into-a-sweat-over-23m-investment-in-gay-sauna-29122918.html
The first scandal of any Popehood is always the, err, gayest?
A bit of a stretch to call it a scandal, old man doesn't know all neighbours in his new apartment block and a poor attempt at then linking in the Popes resignation using a few unsourced rumours. Shoddy attempt at sensationalism.
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
The Princes of the Church need their fine palaces. ::)
That said it sounds like the new First Amongst Equals is not given to such earthly comforts so if he wants to be a church for the poor he has plenty of opportunity to make his mark.
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Yes - use up all your capital in one go and the people eat for a few months.
Then what?
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Yes - use up all your capital in one go and the people eat for a few months.
Then what?
Maybe use the 23m to build a hospital then?
Or a school or two, or three or four, maybe even a tractor or an irrigation system, water pumps.
I'm sure the poor of Africa would like to see gods word put into practice rather than just sermons on what you should and should not be doing.
Nice new frocks and mitres. The present stuff is getting a bit tatty.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 17, 2013, 10:20:59 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 17, 2013, 09:46:20 PM
I'm looking forward to the day when I can set them down and explain all the religions of the world and how they're free to choose to look into whatever suits them or none at all.
Why not just do it now?
Too confusing for them to process mixed messages at that age.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 18, 2013, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Yes - use up all your capital in one go and the people eat for a few months.
Then what?
Maybe use the 23m to build a hospital then?
So all capital should be used up immediately, and when it's all gone so is the income from the employment of that capital? Then how do you maintain the hospital? That's how a child spends his first communion money.
If you want to make an argument for the better deployment of the Vatican's resources to the benefit of the world's poor, I don't think you start with liquidating all performing assets. Now if you were to propose selling off their art treasures and building hospitals, not with the capital, but with the earnings from the investment of that capital, you might have a sustainable plan.
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 18, 2013, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Yes - use up all your capital in one go and the people eat for a few months.
Then what?
Maybe use the 23m to build a hospital then?
So all capital should be used up immediately, and when it's all gone so is the income from the employment of that capital? Then how do you maintain the hospital? That's how a child spends his first communion money.
If you want to make an argument for the better deployment of the Vatican's resources to the benefit of the world's poor, I don't think you start with liquidating all performing assets. Now if you were to propose selling off their art treasures and building hospitals, not with the capital, but with the earnings from the investment of that capital, you might have a sustainable plan.
Matthew 6:28 on..
28 "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the wild flowers grow. They don't work or make clothing. 29 But here is what I tell you. Not even Solomon in all of his glory was dressed like one of those flowers.
30 "If that is how God dresses the wild grass, won't he dress you even better? After all, the grass is here only today. Tomorrow it is thrown into the fire. Your faith is so small!
31 "So don't worry. Don't say, 'What will we eat?' Or, 'What will we drink?' Or, 'What will we wear?' 32 People who are ungodly run after all of those things. Your Father who is in heaven knows that you need them.
33 "But put God's kingdom first. Do what he wants you to do. Then all of those things will also be given to you.
34 "So don't worry about tomorrow. Tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 18, 2013, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Yes - use up all your capital in one go and the people eat for a few months.
Then what?
Maybe use the 23m to build a hospital then?
So all capital should be used up immediately, and when it's all gone so is the income from the employment of that capital? Then how do you maintain the hospital? That's how a child spends his first communion money.
If you want to make an argument for the better deployment of the Vatican's resources to the benefit of the world's poor, I don't think you start with liquidating all performing assets. Now if you were to propose selling off their art treasures and building hospitals, not with the capital, but with the earnings from the investment of that capital, you might have a sustainable plan.
Is this €23m a performing asset or is it just a nice 12 room apartment for a Prince of the Church?
Art treasures would be a better investment than property in the current climate.
Quote from: LeoMc on March 18, 2013, 10:40:58 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 18, 2013, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Yes - use up all your capital in one go and the people eat for a few months.
Then what?
Maybe use the 23m to build a hospital then?
So all capital should be used up immediately, and when it's all gone so is the income from the employment of that capital? Then how do you maintain the hospital? That's how a child spends his first communion money.
If you want to make an argument for the better deployment of the Vatican's resources to the benefit of the world's poor, I don't think you start with liquidating all performing assets. Now if you were to propose selling off their art treasures and building hospitals, not with the capital, but with the earnings from the investment of that capital, you might have a sustainable plan.
Is this €23m a performing asset or is it just a nice 12 room apartment for a Prince of the Church?
Precisely.
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 10:40:01 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 18, 2013, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Yes - use up all your capital in one go and the people eat for a few months.
Then what?
Maybe use the 23m to build a hospital then?
So all capital should be used up immediately, and when it's all gone so is the income from the employment of that capital? Then how do you maintain the hospital? That's how a child spends his first communion money.
If you want to make an argument for the better deployment of the Vatican's resources to the benefit of the world's poor, I don't think you start with liquidating all performing assets. Now if you were to propose selling off their art treasures and building hospitals, not with the capital, but with the earnings from the investment of that capital, you might have a sustainable plan.
Matthew 6:28 on..
28 "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the wild flowers grow. They don't work or make clothing. 29 But here is what I tell you. Not even Solomon in all of his glory was dressed like one of those flowers.
30 "If that is how God dresses the wild grass, won't he dress you even better? After all, the grass is here only today. Tomorrow it is thrown into the fire. Your faith is so small!
31 "So don't worry. Don't say, 'What will we eat?' Or, 'What will we drink?' Or, 'What will we wear?' 32 People who are ungodly run after all of those things. Your Father who is in heaven knows that you need them.
33 "But put God's kingdom first. Do what he wants you to do. Then all of those things will also be given to you.
34 "So don't worry about tomorrow. Tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Why are you quoting what I presume is "scripture" at me? I'm talking about the best way to deploy assets if your aim is to use them to improve the lot of the poor and I'm suggesting that blowing the asset on one capital project is not it.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 18, 2013, 11:00:20 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on March 18, 2013, 10:40:58 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 18, 2013, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Yes - use up all your capital in one go and the people eat for a few months.
Then what?
Maybe use the 23m to build a hospital then?
So all capital should be used up immediately, and when it's all gone so is the income from the employment of that capital? Then how do you maintain the hospital? That's how a child spends his first communion money.
If you want to make an argument for the better deployment of the Vatican's resources to the benefit of the world's poor, I don't think you start with liquidating all performing assets. Now if you were to propose selling off their art treasures and building hospitals, not with the capital, but with the earnings from the investment of that capital, you might have a sustainable plan.
Is this €23m a performing asset or is it just a nice 12 room apartment for a Prince of the Church?
Precisely.
I would assume it is, since it wouldn't be like the Vatican bank to invest in non-performing assets and since this is described as an "investment". I think the investment is in the apartment property, in which there is a 12 room apartment where a "Prince of the Church" lives. Of course, if Frankie is true to his principles, said Prince should soon be living in a bedsit.
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 11:01:46 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 10:40:01 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 18, 2013, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
If the most holy Roman catholic church has 23M to invest, surely the poor and needy in Africa and what not should be getting it, a no brainer I'd have thought.
Yes - use up all your capital in one go and the people eat for a few months.
Then what?
Maybe use the 23m to build a hospital then?
So all capital should be used up immediately, and when it's all gone so is the income from the employment of that capital? Then how do you maintain the hospital? That's how a child spends his first communion money.
If you want to make an argument for the better deployment of the Vatican's resources to the benefit of the world's poor, I don't think you start with liquidating all performing assets. Now if you were to propose selling off their art treasures and building hospitals, not with the capital, but with the earnings from the investment of that capital, you might have a sustainable plan.
Matthew 6:28 on..
28 "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the wild flowers grow. They don't work or make clothing. 29 But here is what I tell you. Not even Solomon in all of his glory was dressed like one of those flowers.
30 "If that is how God dresses the wild grass, won't he dress you even better? After all, the grass is here only today. Tomorrow it is thrown into the fire. Your faith is so small!
31 "So don't worry. Don't say, 'What will we eat?' Or, 'What will we drink?' Or, 'What will we wear?' 32 People who are ungodly run after all of those things. Your Father who is in heaven knows that you need them.
33 "But put God's kingdom first. Do what he wants you to do. Then all of those things will also be given to you.
34 "So don't worry about tomorrow. Tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
Why are you quoting what I presume is "scripture" at me? I'm talking about the best way to deploy assets if your aim is to use them to improve the lot of the poor and I'm suggesting that blowing the asset on one capital project is not it.
I'm just pointing out the juxtaposition the catholic church finds itself in, its doing gods work one minute and then investing vast sums of money into property the next.
Can it be both?
I'm wouldn't be so sure that the plight of the poor was in the minds of those doing the investing long term, short term or whenever.
why does every thread on the Catholic Church turn into a mud slinging contest? This was supposed to be about the election of a new Pope. Of course it descends into the Atheists going on attack and then feigning that they don't have an agenda or a belief system to ram down anyone's throats quoting old testament out of context and hijacking everything.
The Double standards on the board are out of control. Let's not talk about any GAA related deaths, murders, or anything remotely uncomfortable, but anyone else dies there's jokes, the Church and any believers come up in conversation and they are shit on the sole of your shoes. And this is all fine?
I'd say if you wanted an argument for and against faith you only have to look at the history of this GAA board over the past 10 years. Moral standards guided by a society of self-made Gods directing their own destiny and this is what you get. A board full of begrudgers and haters and not a nice thing to say amoung the majority of yous. There used to be a bit of harmless slagging on here, all in good fun. Take a scroll through the topics there and tell me where the craic is now?
Some weeding needs to be done.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 18, 2013, 02:17:01 PM
why does every thread on the Catholic Church turn into a mud slinging contest? This was supposed to be about the election of a new Pope. Of course it descends into the Atheists going on attack and then feigning that they don't have an agenda or a belief system to ram down anyone's throats quoting old testament out of context and hijacking everything.
The Double standards on the board are out of control. Let's not talk about any GAA related deaths, murders, or anything remotely uncomfortable, but anyone else dies there's jokes, the Church and any believers come up in conversation and they are shit on the sole of your shoes. And this is all fine?
I'd say if you wanted an argument for and against faith you only have to look at the history of this GAA board over the past 10 years. Moral standards guided by a society of self-made Gods directing their own destiny and this is what you get. A board full of begrudgers and haters and not a nice thing to say amoung the majority of yous. There used to be a bit of harmless slagging on here, all in good fun. Take a scroll through the topics there and tell me where the craic is now?
Some weeding needs to be done.
I'll get my hoe.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 18, 2013, 02:17:01 PM
why does every thread on the Catholic Church turn into a mud slinging contest? This was supposed to be about the election of a new Pope. Of course it descends into the Atheists going on attack and then feigning that they don't have an agenda or a belief system to ram down anyone's throats quoting old testament out of context and hijacking everything.
The Double standards on the board are out of control. Let's not talk about any GAA related deaths, murders, or anything remotely uncomfortable, but anyone else dies there's jokes, the Church and any believers come up in conversation and they are shit on the sole of your shoes. And this is all fine?
I'd say if you wanted an argument for and against faith you only have to look at the history of this GAA board over the past 10 years. Moral standards guided by a society of self-made Gods directing their own destiny and this is what you get. A board full of begrudgers and haters and not a nice thing to say amoung the majority of yous. There used to be a bit of harmless slagging on here, all in good fun. Take a scroll through the topics there and tell me where the craic is now?
Some weeding needs to be done.
So censorship is your answer? Boot out posters who disagree with your opinion? What opinions should we prioritise?
As for the bit in bold - well it's hard to know where to start.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 18, 2013, 02:17:01 PM
The Double standards on the board are out of control. Let's not talk about any GAA related deaths, murders, or anything remotely uncomfortable, but anyone else dies there's jokes, the Church and any believers come up in conversation and they are shit on the sole of your shoes. And this is all fine?
Are you saying that the mods have an agenda?
Are you saying that some posters can say whatever they like?
Or are you saying that certain counties, their manager and their on and off field actions are off limits on this board?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 17, 2013, 10:17:53 PM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
That's your opinion,
Of course it's my opinion. Wo else's opinion would it be?
QuoteI agree that there have been many people killed over religion, however i think the morals and social order it set within society greatly makes up for that. I'm not here to change someones opinion on religion, i would take no joy even if you did regain your faith, its entirely a private matter, however I cant comprehend why someone would take joy in watching a person lose their faith.
When people believe without evidence then it leads to all manner of ignorance and superstition like homeopathy, horoscopes, and homophobia. Newspapers have a daily section dedicated to horoscopes but not a section dedicated to science in which people could learn about how stuff actually works. Faith holds humanity back. If it weren't for faith we'd have a base on the moon by now with thousands of people living on it, and we'd probably have landed people on Mars.
And I reject your argument that faith is responsible for social order in society. Even most religious people get their morals from the same place as I do, from experience, discussion and from society. If they got it from that silly book that was written by middle eastern goat herders who thought the earth was flat then we'd be stoning people to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
Eh, the scientists of the day believed the earth was flat!
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 02:54:12 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 17, 2013, 10:17:53 PM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
That's your opinion,
Of course it's my opinion. Wo else's opinion would it be?
QuoteI agree that there have been many people killed over religion, however i think the morals and social order it set within society greatly makes up for that. I'm not here to change someones opinion on religion, i would take no joy even if you did regain your faith, its entirely a private matter, however I cant comprehend why someone would take joy in watching a person lose their faith.
When people believe without evidence then it leads to all manner of ignorance and superstition like homeopathy, horoscopes, and homophobia. Newspapers have a daily section dedicated to horoscopes but not a section dedicated to science in which people could learn about how stuff actually works. Faith holds humanity back. If it weren't for faith we'd have a base on the moon by now with thousands of people living on it, and we'd probably have landed people on Mars.
And I reject your argument that faith is responsible for social order in society. Even most religious people get their morals from the same place as I do, from experience, discussion and from society. If they got it from that silly book that was written by middle eastern goat herders who thought the earth was flat then we'd be stoning people to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
Eh, the scientists of the day believed the earth was flat!
Surely the point is that science has moved on, yet people still rely on the book written at that time.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 18, 2013, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 02:54:12 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 17, 2013, 10:17:53 PM
Quote from: tyrone exile on March 17, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
That's your opinion,
Of course it's my opinion. Wo else's opinion would it be?
QuoteI agree that there have been many people killed over religion, however i think the morals and social order it set within society greatly makes up for that. I'm not here to change someones opinion on religion, i would take no joy even if you did regain your faith, its entirely a private matter, however I cant comprehend why someone would take joy in watching a person lose their faith.
When people believe without evidence then it leads to all manner of ignorance and superstition like homeopathy, horoscopes, and homophobia. Newspapers have a daily section dedicated to horoscopes but not a section dedicated to science in which people could learn about how stuff actually works. Faith holds humanity back. If it weren't for faith we'd have a base on the moon by now with thousands of people living on it, and we'd probably have landed people on Mars.
And I reject your argument that faith is responsible for social order in society. Even most religious people get their morals from the same place as I do, from experience, discussion and from society. If they got it from that silly book that was written by middle eastern goat herders who thought the earth was flat then we'd be stoning people to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
Eh, the scientists of the day believed the earth was flat!
Surely the point is that science has moved on, yet people still rely on the book written at that time.
That was not surely the point, yer man indicated that those that wrote "that silly book" believed that the earth was flat, he failed to mention that his beloved scientists of the age believed it to be true, they were wrong obviously.
The Bible has remained virtually unchanged since it was written, if you took the time to read it you would wonder how it was that "Middle eastern goat herders" could write such a book given the quality of the writing!
I am a Christian, I believe in Christ and I am as comfortable in a Protestant Church as I am a Catholic one, to me there is no difference between the two because people go there to pray to the God they believe in, and it is the same God ffa.
Too many hypocrites have started wars and invoked Gods name to justify it, I believe they will get theirs when they get judged.
Quote from: orangeman on March 17, 2013, 09:42:59 AM
Francis, the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, has also urged Argentines not to make costly trips to Rome to see him but to give the money to the poor instead.
(http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k389/quantumleaping/580677_171410099675407_1931260136_n_zpsb286e1fd.jpg)
I object to the bible on literary grounds. Where's the protagonist? Where's the plot? Where's the characters and pacing and the building of tension? It's just a rambling disjointed pile of incoherent babbling about ... something or other. Has to be the most overrated piece of nonsense ever. And every sentence begins with 'and.' What's up with that? If I were an English teacher and a student handed me an essay of the same quality I'd give him an F-- and tell him to start again. F***ing load of ballix.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 18, 2013, 04:53:16 PM
I object to the bible on literary grounds. Where's the protagonist? Where's the plot? Where's the characters and pacing and the building of tension? It's just a rambling disjointed pile of incoherent babbling about ... something or other. Has to be the most overrated piece of nonsense ever. And every sentence begins with 'and.' What's up with that? If I were an English teacher and a student handed me an essay of the same quality I'd give him an F-- and tell him to start again. F***ing load of ballix.
You'd know more about a fish supper.
Case in point. There is no intent here for harmless slagging or poking fun. Long track record of derogatory comments and accusations. Typical Keyboard warrior -big man on here, quite the opposite in real life.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 18, 2013, 05:25:06 PM
You'd know more about a fish supper.
You're one to be talking. You should've followed scripture before you 'looked after' your neighbours beloved pets >:(
Ecclesiastes 3:19
19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is[a]
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 02:54:12 PM
Eh, the scientists of the day believed the earth was flat!
I'm pretty sure they don't anymore. It's great what you can do if you acknowledge that it's okay to change your mind in the light of new information.
What has the curvature of the Earth to do with this thread? Does the Pope believe the Earth is flat?
Quote from: theskull1 on March 18, 2013, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 18, 2013, 05:25:06 PM
You'd know more about a fish supper.
You're one to be talking. You should've followed scripture before you 'looked after' your neighbours beloved pets >:(
Ecclesiastes 3:19
19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is[a]
Take random quotes from random books and use them for your own agenda - we can all do it.....
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2013, 06:01:52 PM
What has the curvature of the Earth to do with this thread? Does the Pope believe the Earth is flat?
Maybe not. But he still believes that there's something wrong with being gay. That sounds like a pretty outdated belief given the current state of scientific knowledge, wouldn't you say?
I'm happy enough taking the Pope's lead on this.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 18, 2013, 06:02:32 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 18, 2013, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 18, 2013, 05:25:06 PM
You'd know more about a fish supper.
You're one to be talking. You should've followed scripture before you 'looked after' your neighbours beloved pets >:(
Ecclesiastes 3:19
19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is[a]
Take random quotes from random books and use them for your own agenda - we can all do it.....
Of course I have my own agenda...duuhh!! but are you saying that this quote from scripture has been taken out of context in relation to what we're talking about here? The writings in the bible are open to interpretation in many places but this one is to the point is it not?
When I asked initially about smoke, I had no idea that I'd get an inferno, or more exactly a tussle about the inferno that Dante had in mind.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2013, 06:01:52 PM
What has the curvature of the Earth to do with this thread? Does the Pope believe the Earth is flat?
Maybe not. But he still believes that there's something wrong with being gay. That sounds like a pretty outdated belief given the current state of scientific knowledge, wouldn't you say?
And what is the current State of scientific knowledge? enlighten us? How many universes are there and what going on at the bottom of black holes in space?
Talk to me science knows what the feck it is goin on about!
QuoteWhen I asked initially about smoke, I had no idea that I'd get an inferno, or more exactly a tussle about the inferno that Dante had in mind.
"A mighty flame followeth a tiny spark."
(Poca favilla gran fiamma seconda)
Quote from: theskull1 on March 18, 2013, 07:08:12 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 18, 2013, 06:02:32 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 18, 2013, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 18, 2013, 05:25:06 PM
You'd know more about a fish supper.
You're one to be talking. You should've followed scripture before you 'looked after' your neighbours beloved pets >:(
Ecclesiastes 3:19
19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is[a]
Take random quotes from random books and use them for your own agenda - we can all do it.....
Of course I have my own agenda...duuhh!! but are you saying that this quote from scripture has been taken out of context in relation to what we're talking about here? The writings in the bible are open to interpretation in many places but this one is to the point is it not?
what has this got to do with the topic or the discussion?
It is saying we all die. Man and beast both die. We both started as dust and to dust we shall return. Man has no advantage over beasts,
in that way we both die.
This is not the only line or quote from the Bible, it is one line posted out of context to prove a point and it doesn't.
Atheists would have us believe that this is the norm - man and beasts are the same - look even the bible says so. Well it doesn't. Scripture teaches us that there are differences between men and beasts. We have eternal SOULS. And (starting with an And just for Eamonn) we, unlike animals are accountable to God.
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
The arrogant wans spout on, most athiests cant be bothered to comment because they don't give a shit, sadly, the usual suspects on here cant help themselves, they go out of their way to be heard on a subject they themselves know feck all about and act like they know it all!
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2013, 06:01:52 PM
What has the curvature of the Earth to do with this thread? Does the Pope believe the Earth is flat?
Maybe not. But he still believes that there's something wrong with being gay. That sounds like a pretty outdated belief given the current state of scientific knowledge, wouldn't you say?
And what is the current State of scientific knowledge? enlighten us? How many universes are there and what going on at the bottom of black holes in space?
Talk to me science knows what the feck it is goin on about!
I presume you won't leave us hanging like that. You will enlighten us as to what religion has to tell us about how many universes there are and when it plans the announcement about what is going on "at the bottom" of black holes in space? And of course, which of the religions will be making the announcement and to what extent its reliability will be influenced by this?
Portadown is at the bottom of a black hole. Even I know that.
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 08:44:47 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
The arrogant wans spout on, most athiests cant be bothered to comment because they don't give a shit, sadly, the usual suspects on here cant help themselves, they go out of their way to be heard on a subject they themselves know feck all about and act like they know it all!
The arrogance lies with the religious. Read the Preamble of the Constitution which forces your deity down our throats.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 11:24:33 PM
The arrogance lies with the religious. Read the Preamble of the Constitution which forces your deity down our throats.
Preach it brother!
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kCD4PtluhB4/TC220lFdAZI/AAAAAAAAAzM/7X3PdaydK54/s1600/atheist-cartoon.gif)
The current state of scientific knowledge about homosexuality is that it's commonplace in nature in thousands of species, so the next time some sinister middle-aged virgin in a frock tells you it's "unnatural" you can tell him he's either smoking crack or hasn't a clue what he's on about.
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2013, 06:01:52 PM
What has the curvature of the Earth to do with this thread? Does the Pope believe the Earth is flat?
Maybe not. But he still believes that there's something wrong with being gay. That sounds like a pretty outdated belief given the current state of scientific knowledge, wouldn't you say?
And what is the current State of scientific knowledge? enlighten us? How many universes are there and what going on at the bottom of black holes in space?
Talk to me science knows what the feck it is goin on about!
I presume you won't leave us hanging like that. You will enlighten us as to what religion has to tell us about how many universes there are and when it plans the announcement about what is going on "at the bottom" of black holes in space? And of course, which of the religions will be making the announcement and to what extent its reliability will be influenced by this?
Anything for you hardly son!
Like Scientists, Religions disagree on the Universe on how it came to be, I would say for this exercise hardly we use a christian viewpoint.b
The Bible speaks of one Universe hardly, one universe for the good book.
Portadown does not get a mention Shane but I concur!
Some alternative opinions on things universe related hardly, enjoy!
The Bible indicates that the earth is round. One verse we can look at is Isaiah 40:22, where it mentions the "circle of the earth." From space, the earth always appears as a circle since it is round. This matches perfectly with the Bible.
Another verse to consider is Job 26:10, where it teaches that God has "inscribed" a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.
The Earth Floats in Space.
A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7, which states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This might make you think of God hanging the earth like a Christmas tree ornament, but hanging it on empty space. Although this verse is written in a poetic way, it certainly seems to suggest that the earth floats in space; and indeed the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs upon nothing, just as the Bible suggests.
The Expansion of the Universe
The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been "stretched out" or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God is stretching it out, causing it to expand.
Now, this verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn't look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that.
In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. So it must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe.
I wonder if any Christians tried to "reinterpret" Isaiah 40:22 to read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn't have to believe in an expanding universe. When the secular world believes one thing and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong. But God is never wrong.
Most astronomers today believe that the universe is indeed expanding. In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters; this indicates that the entire universe is expanding.
You can think of this like points on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all the points move farther away from each other. If the entire universe was being stretched out, the galaxies would all be moving away; and that is what they actually appear to be doing.
It is fascinating that the Bible recorded the idea of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.
The Age of the Universe.
For example, 6,000 years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth (which is not much of a change, considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles away). So this "spiraling away" of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years. But if the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as evolutionists teach), then we would have big problems. In this case, the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth only 1.4 billion years ago. This problem suggests that the moon can't possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.
Secular astronomers who assume that the big bang is true must use other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past. But this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work. The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn't been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years but is perfectly consistent with a young age.
Magnetic Fields of the Planets
Many of the planets of the solar system have strong magnetic fields. These fields are caused by electrical currents that decay with time. We can even measure this decay of the earth's magnetic field: it gets weaker and weaker every year. If the planets were really billions of years old (as evolutionists believe), then their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet they are not. The outer planets of the solar system, in particular, have quite strong magnetic fields. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.
Spiral Galaxies
A galaxy is an enormous assembly of stars, interstellar gas, and dust. The galaxy in which we live is called the Milky Way; it has over 100 billion stars. Some galaxies are round or elliptical. Others have an irregular shape, but some of the most beautiful galaxies are spiral in nature, such as our own. Spiral galaxies slowly rotate, but the inner regions of the spiral rotate faster than the outer regions. This means that a spiral galaxy is constantly becoming more and more twisted up as the spiral becomes tighter. After a few hundred million years, the galaxy would be wound so tightly that the spiral structure would no longer be recognizable. According to the big-bang scenario, galaxies are supposed to be many billions of years old. Yet we do see spiral galaxies — and lots of them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as the big bang requires. Spiral galaxies are consistent with the biblical age of the universe but are problematic for a belief in billions of years.
NASA/ESA
Comets
Comets are balls of ice and dirt. Many of them orbit the sun in elliptical paths. They spend most of their time far away from the sun, but occasionally they come very close to it. Every time a comet comes near the sun, some of its icy material is blasted away by the solar radiation. As a result, comets can orbit the sun for only so long (perhaps about 100,000 years at most) before they completely run out of material. Since we still have a lot of comets, this suggests that the solar system is much younger than 100,000 years; this agrees perfectly with the Bible's history.
Yet, secular astronomers believe the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. Since comets can't last that long, secular astronomers must assume that new comets are created to replace those that are gone. So they've invented the idea of an "Oort cloud." This is supposed to be a vast reservoir of icy masses orbiting far away from the sun. The idea is that occasionally an icy mass falls into the inner solar system to become a "new" comet. It is interesting that there is currently no evidence of an Oort cloud. And there's no reason to believe in one if we accept the creation account in Genesis. Comets are consistent with the fact that the solar system is young.
Supernatural Creation
Aside from age, there are other indications that the universe was supernaturally created as the Bible teaches. These evidences show God's creativity — not a big bang. For example, astronomers have discovered "extrasolar" planets. These are planets that orbit distant stars, not our sun. These planets have not been directly observed. Instead, they have been detected indirectly, usually by the gravitational "tug" they produce on the star they orbit. But the principles being used here are all good "operational science," the kind of testable, repeatable science that can be done in a laboratory. So we have every reason to believe that these are indeed real planets that God created.
These extrasolar planets are actually a problem for big-bang evolutionary models of solar system formation. Secular astronomers had expected that other solar systems would resemble ours, with small planets forming very closely to their star, and large planets (like Jupiter and Saturn) forming farther away. But many of these extrasolar planets are just the opposite; they are large, Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very closely to their star. This is inconsistent with evolutionary models of solar system formation, but it's not a problem for biblical creation. God can create many different varieties of solar systems, and apparently He has done just that.
Conclusion
We have seen that when the Bible addresses the topic of astronomy, it is accurate in every aspect. This shouldn't be surprising, because the Bible, which teaches that the heavens declare the glory and handiwork of God (Psalm 19:1), is the written Word of the Creator. God understands every aspect of the universe He has created, and He never makes mistakes.
In addition, the Word of God provides the correct foundation for understanding the scientific evidence. At the same time, the Bible provides more than just information on the physical universe. It also answers the most profound questions of life. Why are we here? How should we live? What happens when we die? The Word of God even answers the question of why there is death and suffering in the world.
We can have confidence that what the Bible says about our need for salvation is true, because the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time after time. Showing our children how true science confirms the Bible will help them answer the evolutionary attacks they encounter at schools and in the media.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 11:24:33 PM
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 08:44:47 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
The arrogant wans spout on, most athiests cant be bothered to comment because they don't give a shit, sadly, the usual suspects on here cant help themselves, they go out of their way to be heard on a subject they themselves know feck all about and act like they know it all!
The arrogance lies with the religious. Read the Preamble of the Constitution which forces your deity down our throats.
Nah, I am pretty sure you and you ilk that drone on endlessly are arrogant!
So are some of the Religious wans tbf.
Quote from: stew on March 19, 2013, 12:10:46 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 11:24:33 PM
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 08:44:47 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
The arrogant wans spout on, most athiests cant be bothered to comment because they don't give a shit, sadly, the usual suspects on here cant help themselves, they go out of their way to be heard on a subject they themselves know feck all about and act like they know it all!
The arrogance lies with the religious. Read the Preamble of the Constitution which forces your deity down our throats.
Nah, I am pretty sure you and you ilk that drone on endlessly are arrogant!
So are some of the Religious wans tbf.
So you see no problem with the Constitution claiming its legitmacy from a deity and other characters in a fairytale.
Quote from: hardstation on March 19, 2013, 12:19:29 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 19, 2013, 12:00:30 AM
The current state of scientific knowledge about homosexuality is that it's commonplace in nature in thousands of species, so the next time some sinister middle-aged virgin in a frock tells you it's "unnatural" you can tell him he's either smoking crack or hasn't a clue what he's on about.
I don't like to prod (a term with both religious & homosexual meanings) but your frustration with religion seems to stem from certain views on homosexuality. You are not obliged to answer this (obviously) but are you gay? It's just that I find it strange how often it is your angle. I mean, I struggle with religion on a number of levels but the opposition to homosexuality would be fairly down the list, although, still on the list.
You sound like you're asking in good faith so I'll answer in good faith. No, I'm not gay. (And even if I were, so what?) But I do have gay friends, which is probably a lot more common for someone living in the San Francisco Bay Area. I also think that black people are treated abysmally, but that doesn't make me black. The gay issue just happens to be topical at the minute because of the marriage equality issue which I happen to think is the civil rights issue of our time, so it's a good bet that it's going to come up regularly. We were talking about how science changes its mind and religion doesn't, as if that makes religion better, and I thought that the homosexuality-in-nature thing is a great example of science debunking religious dogma, but the scientific reality is still taking a while to sink in to the skulls of the catholic church leadership. In any case I think it was someone else who brought the issue up on this thread and I was responding to that.
I also happen to have strong views on urban planning, but it doesn't tend to come up as often on gaaboard so you don't hear me talking much about it here. I talk about it elsewhere.
QuoteThe likes of killing one another for almost ever would rank a lot higher for me.
Could have sworn I did speak about that earlier on this thread.
Quote from: stew on March 19, 2013, 12:08:38 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2013, 06:01:52 PM
What has the curvature of the Earth to do with this thread? Does the Pope believe the Earth is flat?
Maybe not. But he still believes that there's something wrong with being gay. That sounds like a pretty outdated belief given the current state of scientific knowledge, wouldn't you say?
And what is the current State of scientific knowledge? enlighten us? How many universes are there and what going on at the bottom of black holes in space?
Talk to me science knows what the feck it is goin on about!
I presume you won't leave us hanging like that. You will enlighten us as to what religion has to tell us about how many universes there are and when it plans the announcement about what is going on "at the bottom" of black holes in space? And of course, which of the religions will be making the announcement and to what extent its reliability will be influenced by this?
Anything for you hardly son!
Like Scientists, Religions disagree on the Universe on how it came to be, I would say for this exercise hardly we use a christian viewpoint.b
The Bible speaks of one Universe hardly, one universe for the good book.
Portadown does not get a mention Shane but I concur!
Some alternative opinions on things universe related hardly, enjoy!
The Bible indicates that the earth is round. One verse we can look at is Isaiah 40:22, where it mentions the "circle of the earth." From space, the earth always appears as a circle since it is round. This matches perfectly with the Bible.
Another verse to consider is Job 26:10, where it teaches that God has "inscribed" a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.
The Earth Floats in Space.
A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7, which states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This might make you think of God hanging the earth like a Christmas tree ornament, but hanging it on empty space. Although this verse is written in a poetic way, it certainly seems to suggest that the earth floats in space; and indeed the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs upon nothing, just as the Bible suggests.
The Expansion of the Universe
The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been "stretched out" or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God is stretching it out, causing it to expand.
Now, this verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn't look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that.
In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. So it must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe.
I wonder if any Christians tried to "reinterpret" Isaiah 40:22 to read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn't have to believe in an expanding universe. When the secular world believes one thing and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong. But God is never wrong.
Most astronomers today believe that the universe is indeed expanding. In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters; this indicates that the entire universe is expanding.
You can think of this like points on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all the points move farther away from each other. If the entire universe was being stretched out, the galaxies would all be moving away; and that is what they actually appear to be doing.
It is fascinating that the Bible recorded the idea of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.
The Age of the Universe.
For example, 6,000 years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth (which is not much of a change, considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles away). So this "spiraling away" of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years. But if the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as evolutionists teach), then we would have big problems. In this case, the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth only 1.4 billion years ago. This problem suggests that the moon can't possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.
Secular astronomers who assume that the big bang is true must use other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past. But this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work. The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn't been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years but is perfectly consistent with a young age.
Magnetic Fields of the Planets
Many of the planets of the solar system have strong magnetic fields. These fields are caused by electrical currents that decay with time. We can even measure this decay of the earth's magnetic field: it gets weaker and weaker every year. If the planets were really billions of years old (as evolutionists believe), then their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet they are not. The outer planets of the solar system, in particular, have quite strong magnetic fields. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.
Spiral Galaxies
A galaxy is an enormous assembly of stars, interstellar gas, and dust. The galaxy in which we live is called the Milky Way; it has over 100 billion stars. Some galaxies are round or elliptical. Others have an irregular shape, but some of the most beautiful galaxies are spiral in nature, such as our own. Spiral galaxies slowly rotate, but the inner regions of the spiral rotate faster than the outer regions. This means that a spiral galaxy is constantly becoming more and more twisted up as the spiral becomes tighter. After a few hundred million years, the galaxy would be wound so tightly that the spiral structure would no longer be recognizable. According to the big-bang scenario, galaxies are supposed to be many billions of years old. Yet we do see spiral galaxies — and lots of them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as the big bang requires. Spiral galaxies are consistent with the biblical age of the universe but are problematic for a belief in billions of years.
NASA/ESA
Comets
Comets are balls of ice and dirt. Many of them orbit the sun in elliptical paths. They spend most of their time far away from the sun, but occasionally they come very close to it. Every time a comet comes near the sun, some of its icy material is blasted away by the solar radiation. As a result, comets can orbit the sun for only so long (perhaps about 100,000 years at most) before they completely run out of material. Since we still have a lot of comets, this suggests that the solar system is much younger than 100,000 years; this agrees perfectly with the Bible's history.
Yet, secular astronomers believe the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. Since comets can't last that long, secular astronomers must assume that new comets are created to replace those that are gone. So they've invented the idea of an "Oort cloud." This is supposed to be a vast reservoir of icy masses orbiting far away from the sun. The idea is that occasionally an icy mass falls into the inner solar system to become a "new" comet. It is interesting that there is currently no evidence of an Oort cloud. And there's no reason to believe in one if we accept the creation account in Genesis. Comets are consistent with the fact that the solar system is young.
Supernatural Creation
Aside from age, there are other indications that the universe was supernaturally created as the Bible teaches. These evidences show God's creativity — not a big bang. For example, astronomers have discovered "extrasolar" planets. These are planets that orbit distant stars, not our sun. These planets have not been directly observed. Instead, they have been detected indirectly, usually by the gravitational "tug" they produce on the star they orbit. But the principles being used here are all good "operational science," the kind of testable, repeatable science that can be done in a laboratory. So we have every reason to believe that these are indeed real planets that God created.
These extrasolar planets are actually a problem for big-bang evolutionary models of solar system formation. Secular astronomers had expected that other solar systems would resemble ours, with small planets forming very closely to their star, and large planets (like Jupiter and Saturn) forming farther away. But many of these extrasolar planets are just the opposite; they are large, Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very closely to their star. This is inconsistent with evolutionary models of solar system formation, but it's not a problem for biblical creation. God can create many different varieties of solar systems, and apparently He has done just that.
Conclusion
We have seen that when the Bible addresses the topic of astronomy, it is accurate in every aspect. This shouldn't be surprising, because the Bible, which teaches that the heavens declare the glory and handiwork of God (Psalm 19:1), is the written Word of the Creator. God understands every aspect of the universe He has created, and He never makes mistakes.
In addition, the Word of God provides the correct foundation for understanding the scientific evidence. At the same time, the Bible provides more than just information on the physical universe. It also answers the most profound questions of life. Why are we here? How should we live? What happens when we die? The Word of God even answers the question of why there is death and suffering in the world.
We can have confidence that what the Bible says about our need for salvation is true, because the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time after time. Showing our children how true science confirms the Bible will help them answer the evolutionary attacks they encounter at schools and in the media.
Translation: "God did it."
Nothing new here. Move along.
It's also common place in nature for animals to kill each other for a multitude of reasons. Some for food and some for pure fun - like the fox who kills all the hens and then takes one of them to eat. Atheists continue to contradict their own "non-belief system" (we've had this talk before).
We are not animals. We cannot be compared to other species.
We have souls.
Quote from: hardstation on March 19, 2013, 12:19:29 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 19, 2013, 12:00:30 AM
The current state of scientific knowledge about homosexuality is that it's commonplace in nature in thousands of species, so the next time some sinister middle-aged virgin in a frock tells you it's "unnatural" you can tell him he's either smoking crack or hasn't a clue what he's on about.
I don't like to prod (a term with both religious & homosexual meanings) but your frustration with religion seems to stem from certain views on homosexuality. You are not obliged to answer this (obviously) but are you gay? It's just that I find it strange how often it is your angle. I mean, I struggle with religion on a number of levels but the opposition to homosexuality would be fairly down the list, although, still on the list. The likes of killing one another for almost ever would rank a lot higher for me.
HAHA When in Rome......
Ok lads, enough of that crack. We should be talking about serious things with real world implications.
Like how many people do you know called Francis who will now be saddled against their will with Pope as a nickname?
Well in fairness anyone I know called Francis gets it shortened to Francie, so it'll only become a problem if everybody starts referring to the Pope as Francie.
Quote from: stew on March 19, 2013, 12:08:38 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2013, 06:01:52 PM
What has the curvature of the Earth to do with this thread? Does the Pope believe the Earth is flat?
Maybe not. But he still believes that there's something wrong with being gay. That sounds like a pretty outdated belief given the current state of scientific knowledge, wouldn't you say?
And what is the current State of scientific knowledge? enlighten us? How many universes are there and what going on at the bottom of black holes in space?
Talk to me science knows what the feck it is goin on about!
I presume you won't leave us hanging like that. You will enlighten us as to what religion has to tell us about how many universes there are and when it plans the announcement about what is going on "at the bottom" of black holes in space? And of course, which of the religions will be making the announcement and to what extent its reliability will be influenced by this?
Anything for you hardly son!
Like Scientists, Religions disagree on the Universe on how it came to be, I would say for this exercise hardly we use a christian viewpoint.b
The Bible speaks of one Universe hardly, one universe for the good book.
Portadown does not get a mention Shane but I concur!
Some alternative opinions on things universe related hardly, enjoy!
The Bible indicates that the earth is round. One verse we can look at is Isaiah 40:22, where it mentions the "circle of the earth." From space, the earth always appears as a circle since it is round. This matches perfectly with the Bible.
Another verse to consider is Job 26:10, where it teaches that God has "inscribed" a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.
The Earth Floats in Space.
A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7, which states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This might make you think of God hanging the earth like a Christmas tree ornament, but hanging it on empty space. Although this verse is written in a poetic way, it certainly seems to suggest that the earth floats in space; and indeed the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs upon nothing, just as the Bible suggests.
The Expansion of the Universe
The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been "stretched out" or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God is stretching it out, causing it to expand.
Now, this verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn't look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that.
In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. So it must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe.
I wonder if any Christians tried to "reinterpret" Isaiah 40:22 to read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn't have to believe in an expanding universe. When the secular world believes one thing and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong. But God is never wrong.
Most astronomers today believe that the universe is indeed expanding. In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters; this indicates that the entire universe is expanding.
You can think of this like points on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all the points move farther away from each other. If the entire universe was being stretched out, the galaxies would all be moving away; and that is what they actually appear to be doing.
It is fascinating that the Bible recorded the idea of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.
The Age of the Universe.
For example, 6,000 years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth (which is not much of a change, considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles away). So this "spiraling away" of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years. But if the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as evolutionists teach), then we would have big problems. In this case, the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth only 1.4 billion years ago. This problem suggests that the moon can't possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.
Secular astronomers who assume that the big bang is true must use other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past. But this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work. The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn't been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years but is perfectly consistent with a young age.
Magnetic Fields of the Planets
Many of the planets of the solar system have strong magnetic fields. These fields are caused by electrical currents that decay with time. We can even measure this decay of the earth's magnetic field: it gets weaker and weaker every year. If the planets were really billions of years old (as evolutionists believe), then their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet they are not. The outer planets of the solar system, in particular, have quite strong magnetic fields. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.
Spiral Galaxies
A galaxy is an enormous assembly of stars, interstellar gas, and dust. The galaxy in which we live is called the Milky Way; it has over 100 billion stars. Some galaxies are round or elliptical. Others have an irregular shape, but some of the most beautiful galaxies are spiral in nature, such as our own. Spiral galaxies slowly rotate, but the inner regions of the spiral rotate faster than the outer regions. This means that a spiral galaxy is constantly becoming more and more twisted up as the spiral becomes tighter. After a few hundred million years, the galaxy would be wound so tightly that the spiral structure would no longer be recognizable. According to the big-bang scenario, galaxies are supposed to be many billions of years old. Yet we do see spiral galaxies — and lots of them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as the big bang requires. Spiral galaxies are consistent with the biblical age of the universe but are problematic for a belief in billions of years.
NASA/ESA
Comets
Comets are balls of ice and dirt. Many of them orbit the sun in elliptical paths. They spend most of their time far away from the sun, but occasionally they come very close to it. Every time a comet comes near the sun, some of its icy material is blasted away by the solar radiation. As a result, comets can orbit the sun for only so long (perhaps about 100,000 years at most) before they completely run out of material. Since we still have a lot of comets, this suggests that the solar system is much younger than 100,000 years; this agrees perfectly with the Bible's history.
Yet, secular astronomers believe the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. Since comets can't last that long, secular astronomers must assume that new comets are created to replace those that are gone. So they've invented the idea of an "Oort cloud." This is supposed to be a vast reservoir of icy masses orbiting far away from the sun. The idea is that occasionally an icy mass falls into the inner solar system to become a "new" comet. It is interesting that there is currently no evidence of an Oort cloud. And there's no reason to believe in one if we accept the creation account in Genesis. Comets are consistent with the fact that the solar system is young.
Supernatural Creation
Aside from age, there are other indications that the universe was supernaturally created as the Bible teaches. These evidences show God's creativity — not a big bang. For example, astronomers have discovered "extrasolar" planets. These are planets that orbit distant stars, not our sun. These planets have not been directly observed. Instead, they have been detected indirectly, usually by the gravitational "tug" they produce on the star they orbit. But the principles being used here are all good "operational science," the kind of testable, repeatable science that can be done in a laboratory. So we have every reason to believe that these are indeed real planets that God created.
These extrasolar planets are actually a problem for big-bang evolutionary models of solar system formation. Secular astronomers had expected that other solar systems would resemble ours, with small planets forming very closely to their star, and large planets (like Jupiter and Saturn) forming farther away. But many of these extrasolar planets are just the opposite; they are large, Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very closely to their star. This is inconsistent with evolutionary models of solar system formation, but it's not a problem for biblical creation. God can create many different varieties of solar systems, and apparently He has done just that.
Conclusion
We have seen that when the Bible addresses the topic of astronomy, it is accurate in every aspect. This shouldn't be surprising, because the Bible, which teaches that the heavens declare the glory and handiwork of God (Psalm 19:1), is the written Word of the Creator. God understands every aspect of the universe He has created, and He never makes mistakes.
In addition, the Word of God provides the correct foundation for understanding the scientific evidence. At the same time, the Bible provides more than just information on the physical universe. It also answers the most profound questions of life. Why are we here? How should we live? What happens when we die? The Word of God even answers the question of why there is death and suffering in the world.
We can have confidence that what the Bible says about our need for salvation is true, because the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time after time. Showing our children how true science confirms the Bible will help them answer the evolutionary attacks they encounter at schools and in the media.
You couldn't make it up. Oh wait ...
Quote from: stew on March 19, 2013, 12:08:38 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2013, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: stew on March 18, 2013, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 18, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 18, 2013, 06:01:52 PM
What has the curvature of the Earth to do with this thread? Does the Pope believe the Earth is flat?
Maybe not. But he still believes that there's something wrong with being gay. That sounds like a pretty outdated belief given the current state of scientific knowledge, wouldn't you say?
And what is the current State of scientific knowledge? enlighten us? How many universes are there and what going on at the bottom of black holes in space?
Talk to me science knows what the feck it is goin on about!
I presume you won't leave us hanging like that. You will enlighten us as to what religion has to tell us about how many universes there are and when it plans the announcement about what is going on "at the bottom" of black holes in space? And of course, which of the religions will be making the announcement and to what extent its reliability will be influenced by this?
Anything for you hardly son!
Like Scientists, Religions disagree on the Universe on how it came to be, I would say for this exercise hardly we use a christian viewpoint.b
The Bible speaks of one Universe hardly, one universe for the good book.
Portadown does not get a mention Shane but I concur!
Some alternative opinions on things universe related hardly, enjoy!
The Bible indicates that the earth is round. One verse we can look at is Isaiah 40:22, where it mentions the "circle of the earth." From space, the earth always appears as a circle since it is round. This matches perfectly with the Bible.
Another verse to consider is Job 26:10, where it teaches that God has "inscribed" a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.
The Earth Floats in Space.
A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7, which states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This might make you think of God hanging the earth like a Christmas tree ornament, but hanging it on empty space. Although this verse is written in a poetic way, it certainly seems to suggest that the earth floats in space; and indeed the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs upon nothing, just as the Bible suggests.
The Expansion of the Universe
The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been "stretched out" or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God is stretching it out, causing it to expand.
Now, this verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn't look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that.
In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. So it must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe.
I wonder if any Christians tried to "reinterpret" Isaiah 40:22 to read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn't have to believe in an expanding universe. When the secular world believes one thing and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong. But God is never wrong.
Most astronomers today believe that the universe is indeed expanding. In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters; this indicates that the entire universe is expanding.
You can think of this like points on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all the points move farther away from each other. If the entire universe was being stretched out, the galaxies would all be moving away; and that is what they actually appear to be doing.
It is fascinating that the Bible recorded the idea of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.
The Age of the Universe.
For example, 6,000 years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth (which is not much of a change, considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles away). So this "spiraling away" of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years. But if the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as evolutionists teach), then we would have big problems. In this case, the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth only 1.4 billion years ago. This problem suggests that the moon can't possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.
Secular astronomers who assume that the big bang is true must use other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past. But this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work. The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn't been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years but is perfectly consistent with a young age.
Magnetic Fields of the Planets
Many of the planets of the solar system have strong magnetic fields. These fields are caused by electrical currents that decay with time. We can even measure this decay of the earth's magnetic field: it gets weaker and weaker every year. If the planets were really billions of years old (as evolutionists believe), then their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet they are not. The outer planets of the solar system, in particular, have quite strong magnetic fields. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.
Spiral Galaxies
A galaxy is an enormous assembly of stars, interstellar gas, and dust. The galaxy in which we live is called the Milky Way; it has over 100 billion stars. Some galaxies are round or elliptical. Others have an irregular shape, but some of the most beautiful galaxies are spiral in nature, such as our own. Spiral galaxies slowly rotate, but the inner regions of the spiral rotate faster than the outer regions. This means that a spiral galaxy is constantly becoming more and more twisted up as the spiral becomes tighter. After a few hundred million years, the galaxy would be wound so tightly that the spiral structure would no longer be recognizable. According to the big-bang scenario, galaxies are supposed to be many billions of years old. Yet we do see spiral galaxies — and lots of them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as the big bang requires. Spiral galaxies are consistent with the biblical age of the universe but are problematic for a belief in billions of years.
NASA/ESA
Comets
Comets are balls of ice and dirt. Many of them orbit the sun in elliptical paths. They spend most of their time far away from the sun, but occasionally they come very close to it. Every time a comet comes near the sun, some of its icy material is blasted away by the solar radiation. As a result, comets can orbit the sun for only so long (perhaps about 100,000 years at most) before they completely run out of material. Since we still have a lot of comets, this suggests that the solar system is much younger than 100,000 years; this agrees perfectly with the Bible's history.
Yet, secular astronomers believe the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. Since comets can't last that long, secular astronomers must assume that new comets are created to replace those that are gone. So they've invented the idea of an "Oort cloud." This is supposed to be a vast reservoir of icy masses orbiting far away from the sun. The idea is that occasionally an icy mass falls into the inner solar system to become a "new" comet. It is interesting that there is currently no evidence of an Oort cloud. And there's no reason to believe in one if we accept the creation account in Genesis. Comets are consistent with the fact that the solar system is young.
Supernatural Creation
Aside from age, there are other indications that the universe was supernaturally created as the Bible teaches. These evidences show God's creativity — not a big bang. For example, astronomers have discovered "extrasolar" planets. These are planets that orbit distant stars, not our sun. These planets have not been directly observed. Instead, they have been detected indirectly, usually by the gravitational "tug" they produce on the star they orbit. But the principles being used here are all good "operational science," the kind of testable, repeatable science that can be done in a laboratory. So we have every reason to believe that these are indeed real planets that God created.
These extrasolar planets are actually a problem for big-bang evolutionary models of solar system formation. Secular astronomers had expected that other solar systems would resemble ours, with small planets forming very closely to their star, and large planets (like Jupiter and Saturn) forming farther away. But many of these extrasolar planets are just the opposite; they are large, Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very closely to their star. This is inconsistent with evolutionary models of solar system formation, but it's not a problem for biblical creation. God can create many different varieties of solar systems, and apparently He has done just that.
Conclusion
We have seen that when the Bible addresses the topic of astronomy, it is accurate in every aspect. This shouldn't be surprising, because the Bible, which teaches that the heavens declare the glory and handiwork of God (Psalm 19:1), is the written Word of the Creator. God understands every aspect of the universe He has created, and He never makes mistakes.
In addition, the Word of God provides the correct foundation for understanding the scientific evidence. At the same time, the Bible provides more than just information on the physical universe. It also answers the most profound questions of life. Why are we here? How should we live? What happens when we die? The Word of God even answers the question of why there is death and suffering in the world.
We can have confidence that what the Bible says about our need for salvation is true, because the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time after time. Showing our children how true science confirms the Bible will help them answer the evolutionary attacks they encounter at schools and in the media.
"Secular astronomers", "evolutionists"...
Geology and astronomy tells us the ages of the earth and universe, not "evolutionists".
You at least going to tell us which creationist website the above nonsense comes from?
God stretched out the heavens = Hubble and his successors' work on big bang/expanding universe!! :)
Decent radio 4 debate on iplayer at the minute.....Christianity at the Crossroads
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r9cd6
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
I have to laugh at the fact that you have to point out how embedded religion is in all aspects of most societies!
Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
You're going to be raging when you realise you've accidentally stumbled into a discussion thread about the Pope then.
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 19, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
You're going to be raging when you realise you've accidentally stumbled into a discussion thread about the Pope then.
Now that's top notch! ;D
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 19, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
You're going to be raging when you realise you've accidentally stumbled into a discussion thread about the Pope then.
;D
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 02:12:26 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 19, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
You're going to be raging when you realise you've accidentally stumbled into a discussion thread about the Pope then.
;D
Hahaha :D
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
I have to laugh at the fact that you have to point out how embedded religion is in all aspects of most societies!
Not sure what your point is here.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2013, 02:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
I have to laugh at the fact that you have to point out how embedded religion is in all aspects of most societies!
Not sure what your point is here.
My point is that it should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it, even for a moment, why atheists or agnostics would be concerned about religion. Basically, I was saying that it is sad that you actually had to take the time to even make that statement.
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2013, 02:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
I have to laugh at the fact that you have to point out how embedded religion is in all aspects of most societies!
Not sure what your point is here.
My point is that it should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it, even for a moment, why atheists or agnostics would be concerned about religion. Basically, I was saying that it is sad that you actually had to take the time to even make that statement.
O, I was unclear whether you were in agreement or being dismissive.
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 19, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
You're going to be raging when you realise you've accidentally stumbled into a discussion thread about the Pope then.
Top marks Nally ;D
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 19, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
You're going to be raging when you realise you've accidentally stumbled into a discussion thread about the Pope then.
Quality!
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2013, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2013, 02:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
I have to laugh at the fact that you have to point out how embedded religion is in all aspects of most societies!
Not sure what your point is here.
My point is that it should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it, even for a moment, why atheists or agnostics would be concerned about religion. Basically, I was saying that it is sad that you actually had to take the time to even make that statement.
O, I was unclear whether you were in agreement or being dismissive.
I think he's having a go at you for taking the time to make a contribution to this thread. Or something.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 19, 2013, 04:34:41 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 19, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
You're going to be raging when you realise you've accidentally stumbled into a discussion thread about the Pope then.
Quality!
It was but I think he has a point, the next time a Pope, any Pope, has any influence on me or mine will be the first time!
It's a bit like confession, the last time I was at confession was on my honeymoon, when i say the prayers now I go straight to the big man and cut out the middle man.
The wife and kids still pray to St Anthony if they lose something that means a lot to them, i laugh at them right up until the fecking thing shows up.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 19, 2013, 04:35:48 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2013, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2013, 02:21:05 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 18, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2013, 08:29:27 PM
I always have to laugh at self professed Athiests/Agnostics who keep going on about the Bible or Religion.
Sure if they don't believe in it ...what matter to them at all at all ::)
When deities are removed from every costitution, government, justification for monarchy and law of every country, we might have a deal.
I have to laugh at the fact that you have to point out how embedded religion is in all aspects of most societies!
Not sure what your point is here.
My point is that it should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it, even for a moment, why atheists or agnostics would be concerned about religion. Basically, I was saying that it is sad that you actually had to take the time to even make that statement.
O, I was unclear whether you were in agreement or being dismissive.
I think he's having a go at you for taking the time to make a contribution to this thread. Or something.
FFS. My point (again!) was that it was laughable that MGHU actually had to go to the trouble of pointing out, in response to another post, why atheists care about the role of religion. In other words, why we care should be bleedin' obvious.
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 19, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
You're going to be raging when you realise you've accidentally stumbled into a discussion thread about the Pope then.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQe_ss1n99cFmKFIz8muoqsWbGQgrYSaimJep3LMtgV152_Tt7o)
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2013, 05:16:40 PM
FFS. My point (again!) was that it was laughable that MGHU actually had to go to the trouble of pointing out, in response to another post, why atheists care about the role of religion. In other words, why we care should be bleedin' obvious.
Oh.
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 19, 2013, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2013, 01:48:25 PM
Jesus I'm sick of this pope shite on the telly, who gives a flying f**k who is pope. It makes no difference to anything as far as I can see.
You're going to be raging when you realise you've accidentally stumbled into a discussion thread about the Pope then.
Rather awkward alright :)
Bill Roche, is a good example of the danger of religion in the public sphere.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2013, 10:33:32 PM
Bill Roche, is a good example of the danger of religion in the public sphere.
what Religion would he be then? Because Catholics and Christians don't believe in re-incarnation.
The danger is mis-informed "believers" who don't follow or understand the teachings of the Church who then in turn misrepresent the beliefs and we have everyone playing Chinese whispers. Add to that WUM's like yourself with nothing better to do and you have a recipe for disaster.
I guess you can be proud of yourself. For now.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 19, 2013, 11:04:16 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2013, 10:33:32 PM
Bill Roche, is a good example of the danger of religion in the public sphere.
what Religion would he be then? Because Catholics and Christians don't believe in re-incarnation.
Is that yer man from Reincarnation Street?
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 19, 2013, 11:10:16 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 19, 2013, 11:04:16 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 19, 2013, 10:33:32 PM
Bill Roche, is a good example of the danger of religion in the public sphere.
what Religion would he be then? Because Catholics and Christians don't believe in re-incarnation.
Is that yer man from Reincarnation Street?
There was me thinking Catholics were Christians.
First Nally, now Maguire, who needs Edinburgh.
Man on gold throne somehow keeps straight face whilst calling on others to help poor
Pope Francis has inaugurated his papacy at a Mass in Rome, calling on everyone not sat on a gold chair to defend the poor and the weak.
In front of 200,000 worshippers, the new head of the multi-billion dollar catholic church said it was important that society looked towards the poor, and said so without the slightest trace of irony in his voice.
Putting in place a solid gold ring the size of an apple, Pope Francis told onlookers with a completely straight face, "It is important we think of those less fortunate than ourselves, which is pretty much everyone on the planet when you work here."
"If you think this all looks incredibly splendid – you should see inside, it's pretty awesome, honestly."
"Seriously, if you don't like gold furnishings you'd probably hate it, but I think it's really 'bling' – as some of the young choristers say."
Pope inaugurated
Onlookers said the new Pope's performance was 'very polished', and that they wouldn't want to play poker with him.
Former catholic Simon Williams told us, "Did you see that bit about helping the poor? If you didn't know better you'd say he lives in a mud hut and survives on the generosity of strangers."
"I'm just surprised they didn't pass around a collection plate. You don't get to be the wealthiest organisation on the planet without knowing a thing or two about fund-raising."
"You have to remember, the only difference between bankers and the Vatican is at least the bankers pretend like you're going to get your money back."
http://newsthump.com/2013/03/19/man-on-gold-throne-somehow-keeps-straight-face-whilst-calling-on-others-to-help-poor/
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFwkN97CAAAOUL7.jpg:large)
Looks like they are in Tyrone colours, not Donegal ;)
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
He will never be able to do any right in their eyes. Nor will anyone who even hints at having any faith.
Quote from: Declan on March 20, 2013, 12:33:20 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFwkN97CAAAOUL7.jpg:large)
"Jim wants this back in half an hour
hi". Excellent.
I can't decide if that's Alex Ferguson or Rupert Murdoch on the right. Either way, creepy.
Is that Gorbachev over Fra's right shoulder??
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
:o ... would someone please explain what we are meant to take from this comment? I'm guessing "nothing"
A teacher teaches more kids, a fireman puts out more fires, a doctor treats more sick ..... must I go on? The clergy dont have to worry about keeping a roof over their families heads. The rest of us have lives that need financing to stay afloat
Havent heard too many hurl abuse at the individual either
I'd imagine it is a respose to this article.
Quote from: give her dixie on March 19, 2013, 11:50:06 PM
Man on gold throne somehow keeps straight face whilst calling on others to help poor
Pope Francis has inaugurated his papacy at a Mass in Rome, calling on everyone not sat on a gold chair to defend the poor and the weak.
In front of 200,000 worshippers, the new head of the multi-billion dollar catholic church said it was important that society looked towards the poor, and said so without the slightest trace of irony in his voice.
Putting in place a solid gold ring the size of an apple, Pope Francis told onlookers with a completely straight face, "It is important we think of those less fortunate than ourselves, which is pretty much everyone on the planet when you work here."
"If you think this all looks incredibly splendid – you should see inside, it's pretty awesome, honestly."
"Seriously, if you don't like gold furnishings you'd probably hate it, but I think it's really 'bling' – as some of the young choristers say."
Pope inaugurated
Onlookers said the new Pope's performance was 'very polished', and that they wouldn't want to play poker with him.
Former catholic Simon Williams told us, "Did you see that bit about helping the poor? If you didn't know better you'd say he lives in a mud hut and survives on the generosity of strangers."
"I'm just surprised they didn't pass around a collection plate. You don't get to be the wealthiest organisation on the planet without knowing a thing or two about fund-raising."
"You have to remember, the only difference between bankers and the Vatican is at least the bankers pretend like you're going to get your money back."
http://newsthump.com/2013/03/19/man-on-gold-throne-somehow-keeps-straight-face-whilst-calling-on-others-to-help-poor/
Quote from: theskull1 on March 20, 2013, 03:18:01 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
:o ... would someone please explain what we are meant to take from this comment? I'm guessing "nothing"
A teacher teaches more kids, a fireman puts out more fires, a doctor treats more sick ..... must I go on? The clergy dont have to worry about keeping a roof over their families heads. The rest of us have lives that need financing to stay afloat
Havent heard too many hurl abuse at the individual either
You guess away. I'd say for most people it's pretty obvious what was meant. Pope Francis has a long history of helping the poor. Yet there has been many people who have decided to use that fact that he is now Pope to imply double standards. He is in no position to change the trap and trimmings of the position (I'd actually agree that there doesn't need to be as much pomp or bling) without going through proper channels. I'd pay more intention to the work he has done throughout his life than the trimmings that are attached to his current role to judge the man.
I hope that's helped.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 20, 2013, 02:49:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
He will never be able to do any right in their eyes. Nor will anyone who even hints at having any faith.
Iceman your,
those who criticise in any shape or form must not have any faith, does not enhance your argument as much as you think it does.
Quote from: muppet on March 20, 2013, 04:32:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 20, 2013, 02:49:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
He will never be able to do any right in their eyes. Nor will anyone who even hints at having any faith.
Iceman your, those who criticise in any shape or form must not have any faith, does not enhance your argument as much as you think it does.
My point was I can do no right either - its the same old argument from non-believers. If I stand up for my faith youins are at me. If I make a mistake or get angry or display even a hint of "non Christian" behaviour, youins are at me. Damned if you do, damned if you don't
This thread resembles something you would find on OWC. The tone of the GAA Board has morphed into something similar. unfortunately.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 20, 2013, 03:18:01 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
:o ... would someone please explain what we are meant to take from this comment? I'm guessing "nothing"
A teacher teaches more kids, a fireman puts out more fires, a doctor treats more sick ..... must I go on? The clergy dont have to worry about keeping a roof over their families heads. The rest of us have lives that need financing to stay afloat
Havent heard too many hurl abuse at the individual either
+1
Quote from: The Iceman on March 20, 2013, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 20, 2013, 04:32:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 20, 2013, 02:49:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
He will never be able to do any right in their eyes. Nor will anyone who even hints at having any faith.
Iceman your, those who criticise in any shape or form must not have any faith, does not enhance your argument as much as you think it does.
My point was I can do no right either - its the same old argument from non-believers. If I stand up for my faith youins are at me. If I make a mistake or get angry or display even a hint of "non Christian" behaviour, youins are at me. Damned if you do, damned if you don't
This thread resembles something you would find on OWC. The tone of the GAA Board has morphed into something similar. unfortunately.
There are many completely different arguments here. Here are just two:
a) some posters consider themselves Catholics but criticise the Church;
b) some choose not to believe in religion at all;
You seem to argue that anyone who doesn't agree with you as not worthy of the Church/doesn't have faith/is an atheists or whatever. You are damning everyone who dares to ask questions of the Church, while you know as well as anyone else that it has serious, serious questions to answer.
Many posters on this thread who have been critical of the Church in the past, have posted positive comments regarding our early impressions of this new Pope, but you choose to ignore what could actually be a turning point. I hope the Church doesn't do the same.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 20, 2013, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 20, 2013, 04:32:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 20, 2013, 02:49:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
He will never be able to do any right in their eyes. Nor will anyone who even hints at having any faith.
Iceman your, those who criticise in any shape or form must not have any faith, does not enhance your argument as much as you think it does.
My point was I can do no right either - its the same old argument from non-believers. If I stand up for my faith youins are at me. If I make a mistake or get angry or display even a hint of "non Christian" behaviour, youins are at me. Damned if you do, damned if you don't
This thread resembles something you would find on OWC. The tone of the GAA Board has morphed into something similar. unfortunately.
That is truely shocking Horse. :)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 20, 2013, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 20, 2013, 04:32:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 20, 2013, 02:49:44 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 20, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
I'd say Pope Francis has done a lot more for the poor than most of those that have hurled abuse at him.
He will never be able to do any right in their eyes. Nor will anyone who even hints at having any faith.
Iceman your, those who criticise in any shape or form must not have any faith, does not enhance your argument as much as you think it does.
My point was I can do no right either - its the same old argument from non-believers. If I stand up for my faith youins are at me. If I make a mistake or get angry or display even a hint of "non Christian" behaviour, youins are at me. Damned if you do, damned if you don't
This thread resembles something you would find on OWC. The tone of the GAA Board has morphed into something similar. unfortunately.
Christian behaviour also includes crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, penal laws, forceable conversions, slave labour, legtimising laws (sectartian, sexist, racist, homophobic, bigoted, political), legtimising monarachical rule, promoting poor sexual-health, ignorance, lack of reason, extreme-capitalism.
Quotepromoting poor sexual-health
Whatever about the other points above, the church basically puts forward the idea that you should marry a person and have sex only with that person, which is better for sexual-health than the screw everyone brigade.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2013, 06:29:31 PM
Quotepromoting poor sexual-health
Whatever about the other points above, the church basically puts forward the idea that you should marry a person and have sex only with that person, which is better for sexual-health than the screw everyone brigade.
Thanks, that reminds me. You can add up-tight sexually repressed prudes to that list.
What is their problem with a bit of latex? Are they only able to breed Catholics (now that the sword and gun are no longer acceptable) or do they lack the ability to win over educated adults to their cause.
As the song says, people are still having sex and nothing seems to stop them.
How about making the instruction of faith &/or religion something which is not legal until the individual has reached the age of 18 years of age.
Also, make religious programming not allowable until after 9pm.
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" (Marx, 1844).
Muppet i didn't chose to ignore them I wrote that it was nice to see some people showing decency. I acknowledge and applaud positive comments. But surely I am not expected to address everyone individually?
I don't believe that everyone who doesn't believe in what I believe in is wrong (thats a lot of believes).
I do think it's fair to say though that there is a difference between a cultural Catholic and a religious Catholic. And within the Religious Catholic Group there are varying degrees of acceptance of Church teaching. It's like saying you are a vegan but eating bacon on a Saturday - you're not really a vegan. I don't think that's unfair of me.
I have no problem with people having questions. Its the misrepresentation of the bible, of RC Church teaching and tradition that gets me. It doesn't add any clarity or bring any answers to your questions. It muddy's the water even more. People are either put off even more or further confused.
If you were serious about your questions you would go and speak with a priest.
And lets be honest the majority of the usual suspects on here aren't interested in questions or answers. There are WUM's and just plain assholes who's mission it is to see the Church destroyed, who jump on each and every opportunity to put the church down and put believers down. Maybe it's futile of me to respond at all but I can't always stand by and watch the church be misrepresented by people who don't know or care what they are talking about.
Quote from: Puckoon on March 20, 2013, 04:54:51 PM
That is truely shocking Horse. :)
Ha sorry I have an inner Draperstown man who breaks free sometimes when I'm mad.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 20, 2013, 08:04:27 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on March 20, 2013, 04:54:51 PM
That is truely shocking Horse. :)
Ha sorry I have an inner Draperstown man who breaks free sometimes when I'm mad.
Awe Iceman
A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control (Proverbs 29:11, NIV).
MGHU and Eammoncal are like timid little Men who whistle going past a graveyard. They are so afraid or incapable of serious debate, finding it safer to spray around wild outlandish assertions devoid of any substance, in the hope that they can convince the uneducated if not themselves. Of course they know full well that no-one with a grain of sense would take heed or waste time responding to their inane waffle and mental diarhoeea, but they have a modicum of entertainment value, like the village idiot, though more to be pitied than laughed at
Quote from: Pangurban on March 20, 2013, 08:37:32 PM
MGHU and Eammoncal are like timid little Men who whistle going past a graveyard. They are so afraid or incapable of serious debate, finding it safer to spray around wild outlandish assertions devoid of any substance, in the hope that they can convince the uneducated if not themselves. Of course they know full well that no-one with a grain of sense would take heed or waste time responding to their inane waffle and mental diarhoeea, but they have a modicum of entertainment value, like the village idiot, though more to be pitied than laughed at
Well that settles it. God must exist then.
Excellent ad hominem pangur. :)
Using terminology mentioned earlier, was wondering what people think the split and age profile is between the cultural catholics and the devout?
I'll take a stab and say that in Ireland we have 75% cultural catholics with 80% of the devout being 60+
Quote from: theskull1 on March 20, 2013, 11:55:34 PM
Excellent ad hominem pangur. :)
Using terminology mentioned earlier, was wondering what people think the split and age profile is between the cultural catholics and the devout?
I'll take a stab and say that in Ireland we have 75% cultural catholics with 80% of the devout being 60+
Sounds about right. Plenty of going-through-the-motions going on. Plenty of keeping up appearances. Making sure their wedding-style dresses on their 8-year-old daughters are as white as them next door. Making sure they're seen at the pineapple every week. Can't have anybody stepping out of line and being the odd one out.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 20, 2013, 11:55:34 PM
Excellent ad hominem pangur. :)
Using terminology mentioned earlier, was wondering what people think the split and age profile is between the cultural catholics and the devout?
I'll take a stab and say that in Ireland we have 75% cultural catholics with 80% of the devout being 60+
From the outside looking in, that probably wouldn't be far off the mark, but ask most catholics who would attend the sacraments on a regular basis they'd put themselves in the devout category.
It's all about how you want to be perceived IMO. Go to Mass every sunday and you'd be a 'good catholic', don't and you're a heathen. What you do the other 167 hours of the week is irrelevant.
Someone mentioned misrepresentation of the bible and that's the crux of all issues I have with the current church. They've turned into the scribes and pharisee's that Jesus rebelled against without even realising it.
IM being a case in point who eats the alter but then goes out and wantonly kills his neighbours pets, before saying "forgive me lord", then continues on with his life as a devout.
Seriously flawed coping mechanism is it not? Where is the individual responsibility?
How many like IM, use religion as a dumping ground for their guilty consciences?
These are all very relevant questions, worth asking but no doubt the holy rollers will duck and dive around the answers
Pope Francis will celebrate a mass next week before Easter in a youth detention centre in Rome during which he will wash the feet of prisoners, the Vatican said in a statement on Thursday.
The Vatican said the Holy Thursday mass continued a tradition of the then Jorge Bergoglio when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires and held masses in prisons, hospitals or old people's homes.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 21, 2013, 09:23:31 AM
IM being a case in point who eats the alter but then goes out and wantonly kills his neighbours pets, before saying "forgive me lord", then continues on with his life as a devout.
Seriously flawed coping mechanism is it not? Where is the individual responsibility?
How many like IM, use religion as a dumping ground for their guilty consciences?
These are all very relevant questions, worth asking but no doubt the holy rollers will duck and dive around the answers
Good man Skull you have some eye sight hi to see the altar I am eating from nearly 6000 miles away - or maybe you're a visionary?
Case in point the cats were feral cats that a stupid neighbour was giving a garage to live in and leaving food out. As i said multiple times there was an epidemic of them in the town I lived in, in NJ. I have no problem killing an animal that is causing a danger to the well-being of my family - it is well known that cat feces can cause blindness in children.
I'm sure you have killed mice? what about flies? OR because you don't claim to have any faith in God are you then exempt from any scrutiny? Do you have any accountability? Or because in your naturalist beliefs we are all just animals surviving how we can can, you do whatever you want? And if so why give a crap about any of the rest of us?
I genuinely don't think what I did was wrong. I killed vermin. If it was wrong then I guess I'll have to answer for it at some point.
We spent a thread discussing this already - but you seem still very hung up on the cats. Or is there something else you'd like to talk about now?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 03:01:56 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 21, 2013, 09:23:31 AM
IM being a case in point who eats the alter but then goes out and wantonly kills his neighbours pets, before saying "forgive me lord", then continues on with his life as a devout.
Seriously flawed coping mechanism is it not? Where is the individual responsibility?
How many like IM, use religion as a dumping ground for their guilty consciences?
These are all very relevant questions, worth asking but no doubt the holy rollers will duck and dive around the answers
Good man Skull you have some eye sight hi to see the altar I am eating from nearly 6000 miles away - or maybe you're a visionary?
Case in point the cats were feral cats that a stupid neighbour was giving a garage to live in and leaving food out. As i said multiple times there was an epidemic of them in the town I lived in, in NJ. I have no problem killing an animal that is causing a danger to the well-being of my family - it is well known that cat feces can cause blindness in children.
I'm sure you have killed mice? what about flies? OR because you don't claim to have any faith in God are you then exempt from any scrutiny? Do you have any accountability? Or because in your naturalist beliefs we are all just animals surviving how we can can, you do whatever you want? And if so why give a crap about any of the rest of us?
I genuinely don't think what I did was wrong. I killed vermin. If it was wrong then I guess I'll have to answer for it at some point.
We spent a thread discussing this already - but you seem still very hung up on the cats. Or is there something else you'd like to talk about now?
Are you the same man who said he would put God before his family?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
But convictions sent men we all know to war. Many Irish men and women who picked up a gun in defense of their country, or who starved themselves to death in a prison cell, did so based on convictions. They choose what they held sacred over their families.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 03:01:56 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 21, 2013, 09:23:31 AM
IM being a case in point who eats the alter but then goes out and wantonly kills his neighbours pets, before saying "forgive me lord", then continues on with his life as a devout.
Seriously flawed coping mechanism is it not? Where is the individual responsibility?
How many like IM, use religion as a dumping ground for their guilty consciences?
These are all very relevant questions, worth asking but no doubt the holy rollers will duck and dive around the answers
Good man Skull you have some eye sight hi to see the altar I am eating from nearly 6000 miles away - or maybe you're a visionary?
Case in point the cats were feral cats that a stupid neighbour was giving a garage to live in and leaving food out. As i said multiple times there was an epidemic of them in the town I lived in, in NJ. I have no problem killing an animal that is causing a danger to the well-being of my family - it is well known that cat feces can cause blindness in children.
I'm sure you have killed mice? what about flies? OR because you don't claim to have any faith in God are you then exempt from any scrutiny? Do you have any accountability? Or because in your naturalist beliefs we are all just animals surviving how we can can, you do whatever you want? And if so why give a crap about any of the rest of us?
I genuinely don't think what I did was wrong. I killed vermin. If it was wrong then I guess I'll have to answer for it at some point.
We spent a thread discussing this already - but you seem still very hung up on the cats. Or is there something else you'd like to talk about now?
Are you the same man who said he would put God before his family?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
But convictions sent men we all know to war. Many Irish men and women who picked up a gun in defense of their country, or who starved themselves to death in a prison cell, did so based on convictions. They choose what they held sacred over their families.
so how do these statements contradict each other? how is killing vermin going against God?
one of these days you are going to push the wrong man and not have the security of the keyboard. You scrutinize and chastise anyone who trys to be good in the name of God yet you're pure evil yourself taking delight in the annoyance of others - you've said yourself before- its what you enjoy.
In fairness to the Iceman, there's nothing wrong with killing feral cats, as long as its done humanely. They're pests and also have a devastating effect on wild birds and small mammals.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 03:01:56 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 21, 2013, 09:23:31 AM
IM being a case in point who eats the alter but then goes out and wantonly kills his neighbours pets, before saying "forgive me lord", then continues on with his life as a devout.
Seriously flawed coping mechanism is it not? Where is the individual responsibility?
How many like IM, use religion as a dumping ground for their guilty consciences?
These are all very relevant questions, worth asking but no doubt the holy rollers will duck and dive around the answers
Good man Skull you have some eye sight hi to see the altar I am eating from nearly 6000 miles away - or maybe you're a visionary?
Case in point the cats were feral cats that a stupid neighbour was giving a garage to live in and leaving food out. As i said multiple times there was an epidemic of them in the town I lived in, in NJ. I have no problem killing an animal that is causing a danger to the well-being of my family - it is well known that cat feces can cause blindness in children.
I'm sure you have killed mice? what about flies? OR because you don't claim to have any faith in God are you then exempt from any scrutiny? Do you have any accountability? Or because in your naturalist beliefs we are all just animals surviving how we can can, you do whatever you want? And if so why give a crap about any of the rest of us?
I genuinely don't think what I did was wrong. I killed vermin. If it was wrong then I guess I'll have to answer for it at some point.
We spent a thread discussing this already - but you seem still very hung up on the cats. Or is there something else you'd like to talk about now?
Are you the same man who said he would put God before his family?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
But convictions sent men we all know to war. Many Irish men and women who picked up a gun in defense of their country, or who starved themselves to death in a prison cell, did so based on convictions. They choose what they held sacred over their families.
so how do these statements contradict each other? how is killing vermin going against God?
one of these days you are going to push the wrong man and not have the security of the keyboard. You scrutinize and chastise anyone who trys to be good in the name of God yet you're pure evil yourself taking delight in the annoyance of others - you've said yourself before- its what you enjoy.
Again from your
"good" ::) book
A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)
I am a pacifist, the last fight I was in was 24 years ago when I was 9.
"Pure Evil" o dear, you really are losing it now. I help the poor and sick on a daily basis. Try doing good in the name of humanity, it's a far better moral code.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 05:01:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 03:01:56 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 21, 2013, 09:23:31 AM
IM being a case in point who eats the alter but then goes out and wantonly kills his neighbours pets, before saying "forgive me lord", then continues on with his life as a devout.
Seriously flawed coping mechanism is it not? Where is the individual responsibility?
How many like IM, use religion as a dumping ground for their guilty consciences?
These are all very relevant questions, worth asking but no doubt the holy rollers will duck and dive around the answers
Good man Skull you have some eye sight hi to see the altar I am eating from nearly 6000 miles away - or maybe you're a visionary?
Case in point the cats were feral cats that a stupid neighbour was giving a garage to live in and leaving food out. As i said multiple times there was an epidemic of them in the town I lived in, in NJ. I have no problem killing an animal that is causing a danger to the well-being of my family - it is well known that cat feces can cause blindness in children.
I'm sure you have killed mice? what about flies? OR because you don't claim to have any faith in God are you then exempt from any scrutiny? Do you have any accountability? Or because in your naturalist beliefs we are all just animals surviving how we can can, you do whatever you want? And if so why give a crap about any of the rest of us?
I genuinely don't think what I did was wrong. I killed vermin. If it was wrong then I guess I'll have to answer for it at some point.
We spent a thread discussing this already - but you seem still very hung up on the cats. Or is there something else you'd like to talk about now?
Are you the same man who said he would put God before his family?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
But convictions sent men we all know to war. Many Irish men and women who picked up a gun in defense of their country, or who starved themselves to death in a prison cell, did so based on convictions. They choose what they held sacred over their families.
so how do these statements contradict each other? how is killing vermin going against God?
one of these days you are going to push the wrong man and not have the security of the keyboard. You scrutinize and chastise anyone who trys to be good in the name of God yet you're pure evil yourself taking delight in the annoyance of others - you've said yourself before- its what you enjoy.
Again from your "good" ::) book
A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)
I am a pacifist, the last fight I was in was 24 years ago when I was 9.
"Pure Evil" o dear, you really are losing it now. I help the poor and sick on a daily basis. Try doing good in the name of humanity, it's a far better moral code.
Yes mayo, you are the boards Mother Theresa, props to you for the work you allegedly do for the sick and poor on a daily basis! :o
Funny thing about the Iceman, he is just that! a man, God tells us to be slow to anger, not to not get angry, I think, given the drivel you and your ilk have spouted on this thread we could say that the Iceman has been slow to anger, thus honoring the good book.
Iceman, tell these boys nothing of a personal nature, they are not worth it big man.
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 05:30:23 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 05:01:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 04:08:17 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 03:01:56 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 21, 2013, 09:23:31 AM
IM being a case in point who eats the alter but then goes out and wantonly kills his neighbours pets, before saying "forgive me lord", then continues on with his life as a devout.
Seriously flawed coping mechanism is it not? Where is the individual responsibility?
How many like IM, use religion as a dumping ground for their guilty consciences?
These are all very relevant questions, worth asking but no doubt the holy rollers will duck and dive around the answers
Good man Skull you have some eye sight hi to see the altar I am eating from nearly 6000 miles away - or maybe you're a visionary?
Case in point the cats were feral cats that a stupid neighbour was giving a garage to live in and leaving food out. As i said multiple times there was an epidemic of them in the town I lived in, in NJ. I have no problem killing an animal that is causing a danger to the well-being of my family - it is well known that cat feces can cause blindness in children.
I'm sure you have killed mice? what about flies? OR because you don't claim to have any faith in God are you then exempt from any scrutiny? Do you have any accountability? Or because in your naturalist beliefs we are all just animals surviving how we can can, you do whatever you want? And if so why give a crap about any of the rest of us?
I genuinely don't think what I did was wrong. I killed vermin. If it was wrong then I guess I'll have to answer for it at some point.
We spent a thread discussing this already - but you seem still very hung up on the cats. Or is there something else you'd like to talk about now?
Are you the same man who said he would put God before his family?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
But convictions sent men we all know to war. Many Irish men and women who picked up a gun in defense of their country, or who starved themselves to death in a prison cell, did so based on convictions. They choose what they held sacred over their families.
so how do these statements contradict each other? how is killing vermin going against God?
one of these days you are going to push the wrong man and not have the security of the keyboard. You scrutinize and chastise anyone who trys to be good in the name of God yet you're pure evil yourself taking delight in the annoyance of others - you've said yourself before- its what you enjoy.
Again from your "good" ::) book
A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)
I am a pacifist, the last fight I was in was 24 years ago when I was 9.
"Pure Evil" o dear, you really are losing it now. I help the poor and sick on a daily basis. Try doing good in the name of humanity, it's a far better moral code.
Yes mayo, you are the boards Mother Theresa, props to you for the work you allegedly do for the sick and poor on a daily basis! :o
Funny thing about the Iceman, he is just that! a man, God tells us to be slow to anger, not to not get angry, I think, given the drivel you and your ilk have spouted on this thread we could say that the Iceman has been slow to anger, thus honoring the good book.
Iceman, tell these boys nothing of a personal nature, they are not worth it big man.
I hope I'm not like Mother Theresa, the levels of hygiene and working conditions in her organisation are a disgrace. I don't get what you mean by
"probs to you". My comment was inspired by an assertion by one of the god-squad above that the Pope does more work than the Atheists/Agnostics/Lapsed-Christians/Questioning-Christians on this board. For our relative age I'd be confident I'm not doing so bad pro rata. I'd be confident that there are others on this board who do far far more.
Calling someone Mother Theresa is such an insult it's probably a violation of this messageboard's rules. God forbid if I ever get compared to that money-grabbing witch.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 21, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Calling someone Mother Theresa is such an insult it's probably a violation of this messageboard's rules. God forbid if I ever get compared to that money-grabbing witch.
Ach wee eamon, God bless your wee heart.............................. is that the best you can do peaches??? c'mon buttercup, try and do better than that, not even close to a rise son! :)
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 05:45:33 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 21, 2013, 05:38:48 PM
Calling someone Mother Theresa is such an insult it's probably a violation of this messageboard's rules. God forbid if I ever get compared to that money-grabbing witch.
Ach wee eamon, God bless your wee heart.............................. is that the best you can do peaches??? c'mon buttercup, try and do better than that, not even close to a rise son! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30XdrOLT7J4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30XdrOLT7J4)
Indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60)
&
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478 (http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478)
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
&
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478 (http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478)
Do you really believe this shite? gwaaaannnnnnnn, admit it, you believe it, gwwwwwwaaaaannnnn !
Keep em coming our fellah, you are fierce tame altogether! :)
Objectivity, look it up you fecking clampett! :)
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
&
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478 (http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478)
Do you really believe this shite? gwaaaannnnnnnn, admit it, you believe it, gwwwwwwaaaaannnnn !
Keep em coming our fellah, you are fierce tame altogether! :)
Objectivity, look it up you fecking clampett! :)
Objectivity, thats some laugh coming from the religious.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
&
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478 (http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478)
Do you really believe this shite? gwaaaannnnnnnn, admit it, you believe it, gwwwwwwaaaaannnnn !
Keep em coming our fellah, you are fierce tame altogether! :)
Objectivity, look it up you fecking clampett! :)
Objectivity, thats some laugh coming from the religious.
So 'more religious' immediately means 'less objective'? Is that what you're saying?
If a kid is raised a Catholic and chooses to become Atheist or Agnostic, it's because they must be becoming more objective in their thoughts and outlook? Is that what you're saying?
Is it possible for a kid brought up with little or no religion to become religious by being objective? Or is it a result of a narrowing of the mind in your (obviously superior) view?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cardinal-keith-obrien-was-in-longterm-gay-relationship-claims-partner-8544536.html
Cardinal Keith O'Brien was in long-term gay relationship, claims 'partner'
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, formerly Britain's most senior Catholic cleric and a man renowned for railing against homosexuality, was in a "longstanding physical relationship" with one of the men whose recent allegations brought about his downfall, it has been claimed.
According to a report in The Herald newspaper, Cardinal O'Brien confessed to the relationship after it was recently revealed there had been several complaints to the Vatican about his sexual behaviour towards priests in the 1980s.
The paper claims that the length of the relationship explains why the 75-year-old Cardinal spoke of his time as a "priest, bishop and Cardinal" when he made his brief apology earlier this month admitting that his "sexual conduct" had fallen below the standards expected of him.
It is believed the man, who was due to speak to the newspaper before being advised otherwise by his bishop, currently lives outside Scotland.
The report will pile further pressure on the Cardinal to make a much more detailed public response to the allegations against him. Britain's most senior serving cleric stepped down one week after accusations against him first surfaced in public from four unnamed priests who said he had approached them sexually in the 1980s.
The allegations were initially made to the Vatican's ambassador to Britain and passed up the chain to Rome but they became public when a newspaper printed details last month.
Cardinal O'Brien initially stepped down from the church without admitting that there was any substance to the allegations. However a week later he released a brief apology which suggested there was some truth in what the priests were saying. But the statement lacked any precise detail.
According to The Herald, the man who had been in a long term relationship with the Cardinal is known to have been in regular telephone contact with him until recently and was a frequent visitor to St Benets, his official residence in Edinburgh's Morningside.
Quote from: MasterShake on March 21, 2013, 07:56:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
&
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478 (http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478)
Do you really believe this shite? gwaaaannnnnnnn, admit it, you believe it, gwwwwwwaaaaannnnn !
Keep em coming our fellah, you are fierce tame altogether! :)
Objectivity, look it up you fecking clampett! :)
Objectivity, thats some laugh coming from the religious.
So 'more religious' immediately means 'less objective'? Is that what you're saying?
If a kid is raised a Catholic and chooses to become Atheist or Agnostic, it's because they must be becoming more objective in their thoughts and outlook? Is that what you're saying?
Is it possible for a kid brought up with little or no religion to become religious by being objective? Or is it a result of a narrowing of the mind in your (obviously superior) view?
Master, please look for a response in about four hours, after he figures out what you are trying to say, not the brightest bulb and all that!
Quote from: MasterShake on March 21, 2013, 07:56:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
&
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478 (http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478)
Do you really believe this shite? gwaaaannnnnnnn, admit it, you believe it, gwwwwwwaaaaannnnn !
Keep em coming our fellah, you are fierce tame altogether! :)
Objectivity, look it up you fecking clampett! :)
Objectivity, thats some laugh coming from the religious.
So 'more religious' immediately means 'less objective'? Is that what you're saying?
If a kid is raised a Catholic and chooses to become Atheist or Agnostic, it's because they must be becoming more objective in their thoughts and outlook? Is that what you're saying?
Is it possible for a kid brought up with little or no religion to become religious by being objective? Or is it a result of a narrowing of the mind in your (obviously superior) view?
My understanding is that objectivity is based on fact. As religion is based on belief, it's therefore subjective. No?
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 08:49:55 PM
Quote from: MasterShake on March 21, 2013, 07:56:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
&
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478 (http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478)
Do you really believe this shite? gwaaaannnnnnnn, admit it, you believe it, gwwwwwwaaaaannnnn !
Keep em coming our fellah, you are fierce tame altogether! :)
Objectivity, look it up you fecking clampett! :)
Objectivity, thats some laugh coming from the religious.
So 'more religious' immediately means 'less objective'? Is that what you're saying?
If a kid is raised a Catholic and chooses to become Atheist or Agnostic, it's because they must be becoming more objective in their thoughts and outlook? Is that what you're saying?
Is it possible for a kid brought up with little or no religion to become religious by being objective? Or is it a result of a narrowing of the mind in your (obviously superior) view?
Master, please look for a response in about four hours, after he figures out what you are trying to say, not the brightest bulb and all that!
A good man Stew, I see the god-squad are getting tetchy. Nice presumption that I have little else to do than trawl through GAAboard.com.
In regards to Mother Theresa, I long believed (as a Christian) her work in India was good and in the best interests of those who came under the authority of her organisation. This was the subjective interpretation of a Catholic who allowed personal bias based on the perception of the Roman Catholic Church as a positive organisation, alongside the belief in the existence of God, simply as that is what society had brainwashed me to take as fact, despite there not being or ever having been a grain of evidence. This view of Mother Theresa was the presumption of goodness, without any hard evidence to guide such thought.
As an Atheist, I take a more objective view on this woman. I see the mounting evidence of her megalomania, neglect and lack of basic standards of care. Her so called nursing staff ignore evidence based practice, instead choosing to follow outdated practices dangerous to the health and well-being of those in their care. They allow religious dogma and and narcissism to be their guiding model of care.
You talk about an atheist becoming religious v a religious becoming an atheist.
When an atheist becomes religious, they choose to ignore the fact that there is no objective evidence to prove the existence of a deity. Their act of conversion is based solely on a lack of evidence and theirfore cannot be an act of rational thought. It is more a subjective though process, brought on by chemical reactions in the brain, stress, emotional distress etc.
When a religious becomes an atheist, they abandon subjective thought processes and becoming more questioning of preconcieved notions which are based on evidenceless ideas. By taking an objective viewpoint, they eventually come to a conclusion based on evidence. As there is no evidence of god/deity, there is no reasonable rationale to believe in one.
If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.
Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 10:49:15 PM
If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.
Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?
The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.
The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).
The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 10:31:34 PM
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 08:49:55 PM
Quote from: MasterShake on March 21, 2013, 07:56:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: stew on March 21, 2013, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
&
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478 (http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/11675180478)
Do you really believe this shite? gwaaaannnnnnnn, admit it, you believe it, gwwwwwwaaaaannnnn !
Keep em coming our fellah, you are fierce tame altogether! :)
Objectivity, look it up you fecking clampett! :)
Objectivity, thats some laugh coming from the religious.
So 'more religious' immediately means 'less objective'? Is that what you're saying?
If a kid is raised a Catholic and chooses to become Atheist or Agnostic, it's because they must be becoming more objective in their thoughts and outlook? Is that what you're saying?
Is it possible for a kid brought up with little or no religion to become religious by being objective? Or is it a result of a narrowing of the mind in your (obviously superior) view?
Master, please look for a response in about four hours, after he figures out what you are trying to say, not the brightest bulb and all that!
A good man Stew, I see the god-squad are getting tetchy. Nice presumption that I have little else to do than trawl through GAAboard.com.
In regards to Mother Theresa, I long believed (as a Christian) her work in India was good and in the best interests of those who came under the authority of her organisation. This was the subjective interpretation of a Catholic who allowed personal bias based on the perception of the Roman Catholic Church as a positive organisation, alongside the belief in the existence of God, simply as that is what society had brainwashed me to take as fact, despite there not being or ever having been a grain of evidence. This view of Mother Theresa was the presumption of goodness, without any hard evidence to guide such thought.
As an Atheist, I take a more objective view on this woman. I see the mounting evidence of her megalomania, neglect and lack of basic standards of care. Her so called nursing staff ignore evidence based practice, instead choosing to follow outdated practices dangerous to the health and well-being of those in their care. They allow religious dogma and and narcissism to be their guiding model of care.
You talk about an atheist becoming religious v a religious becoming an atheist.
When an atheist becomes religious, they choose to ignore the fact that there is no objective evidence to prove the existence of a deity. Their act of conversion is based solely on a lack of evidence and theirfore cannot be an act of rational thought. It is more a subjective though process, brought on by chemical reactions in the brain, stress, emotional distress etc.
When a religious becomes an atheist, they abandon subjective thought processes and becoming more questioning of preconcieved notions which are based on evidenceless ideas. By taking an objective viewpoint, they eventually come to a conclusion based on evidence. As there is no evidence of god/deity, there is no reasonable rationale to believe in one.
The problem with using logic to prove the non existence of God is that logic itself is a Western European creation and itself subject to question. For some situations we have to accept illogic to answer important questions, eg light. Add to that the fact that we can only see the world through the structure of the language given to us. According to Sapir-Whorf, people with radically different language structures see a different world, eg Hopi Indians. What is evidence then when we are all prisoners to the tyranny of language? We are mere mortals and we know nothing.
Quote from: NetNitrate on March 22, 2013, 01:54:10 AM
The problem with using logic to prove the non existence of God is that logic itself is a Western European creation and itself subject to question. For some situations we have to accept illogic to answer important questions, eg light.
Say what? Are you telling me you don't know what light is? It's electromagnetic radiation within a certain frequency range emitted by the process of nuclear fusion in stars like our sun, a type of radiation that is detectable to us through the naturally evolved organ known as the eye.
QuoteAdd to that the fact that we can only see the world through the structure of the language given to us. According to Sapir-Whorf, people with radically different language structures see a different world, eg Hopi Indians. What is evidence then when we are all prisoners to the tyranny of language?
"Fact"? The Whorfian hypothesis is still a hypothesis. Last time I checked, the field of linguistics had not yet reached a consensus on it, although it is a very attractive idea.
QuoteWe are mere mortals and we know nothing.
"We"?
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 10:49:15 PM
If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.
Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?
The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.
The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).
The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).
So if we decide for talk's sake to go along with your conclusions (thanks for striking out random, without any explanation) if these
natural chemical reactions in your brain and in mine lead us to different actions then what is wrong with that in your
natural world? Surely this is as normal as one dog who decides to stay with other animals and another dog who decides to roam free. Surely if this is all just
natural then you wouldn't have a problem with it? And as you do have a problem with it then it would seem that you don't even believe in your own argument.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 22, 2013, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 10:49:15 PM
If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.
Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?
The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.
The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).
The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).
So if we decide for talk's sake to go along with your conclusions (thanks for striking out random, without any explanation) if these natural chemical reactions in your brain and in mine lead us to different actions then what is wrong with that in your natural world? Surely this is as normal as one dog who decides to stay with other animals and another dog who decides to roam free. Surely if this is all just natural then you wouldn't have a problem with it? And as you do have a problem with it then it would seem that you don't even believe in your own argument.
I don't remember using random, so I struck through it as it appeared you were suggesting I said random. I don't know if these reactions are random or not, I need further reading of the subject before I will argue one way or the other.
Psychosis is a natural state too, but I wouldn't be promoting the condition.
Talking about dogs,
"I stopped believing in god when I realised its dog spelt backwards" (Sutherland, 2011) ;D
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 22, 2013, 03:03:44 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 22, 2013, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 10:49:15 PM
If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.
Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?
The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.
The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).
The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).
So if we decide for talk's sake to go along with your conclusions (thanks for striking out random, without any explanation) if these natural chemical reactions in your brain and in mine lead us to different actions then what is wrong with that in your natural world? Surely this is as normal as one dog who decides to stay with other animals and another dog who decides to roam free. Surely if this is all just natural then you wouldn't have a problem with it? And as you do have a problem with it then it would seem that you don't even believe in your own argument.
I don't remember using random, so I struck through it as it appeared you were suggesting I said random. I don't know if these reactions are random or not, I need further reading of the subject before I will argue one way or the other.
Psychosis is a natural state too, but I wouldn't be promoting the condition.
Talking about dogs, "I stopped believing in god when I realised its dog spelt backwards" (Sutherland, 2011) ;D
But you
are arguing gone way or another. You stance on the matter has been pretty clear. Now you need to read up some more about it. And of course you will read both sides of the argument before forming an opinion. And that opinion will still be a natural chemical reaction in your brain..... So you have been vehemently fighting for something you don't really know about or understand or maybe believe in?
Oh yeah because you are a WUM.....
Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.
They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 22, 2013, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 22, 2013, 03:03:44 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 22, 2013, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 21, 2013, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 21, 2013, 10:49:15 PM
If your thoughts are simply chemical reactions in your brain how can they be "rational" or "logical". Is it your own individual, personal logic or rationale that allows you to make these claims? Seems a little contradictory to me.
Random, natural, chemical reactions in the brain surely cannot be rational or logical?
The chemical and electrical reactions in my brain are allowing me to follow a trail of evidence, to come to a conclusion. There is no evidence of a deity, therefore I cannot conclude there is a deity.
The chemical and electrical reactions in your brain are allowing you to ignore the evidence. They are creating a path of convenience which ignores evidence, they are facilitating wishful thinking rather than reason, therefore you wish and hope and pray there is a god (despite it being a fanciful notion).
The chemical reactions in my brain are allowing me to accept the concept that after this life is done, I am done forever, your's needs to create a security blanket of everlasting life to regulate your emotional state (a metabolic fail-safe).
So if we decide for talk's sake to go along with your conclusions (thanks for striking out random, without any explanation) if these natural chemical reactions in your brain and in mine lead us to different actions then what is wrong with that in your natural world? Surely this is as normal as one dog who decides to stay with other animals and another dog who decides to roam free. Surely if this is all just natural then you wouldn't have a problem with it? And as you do have a problem with it then it would seem that you don't even believe in your own argument.
I don't remember using random, so I struck through it as it appeared you were suggesting I said random. I don't know if these reactions are random or not, I need further reading of the subject before I will argue one way or the other.
Psychosis is a natural state too, but I wouldn't be promoting the condition.
Talking about dogs, "I stopped believing in god when I realised its dog spelt backwards" (Sutherland, 2011) ;D
But you are arguing gone way or another. You stance on the matter has been pretty clear. Now you need to read up some more about it. And of course you will read both sides of the argument before forming an opinion. And that opinion will still be a natural chemical reaction in your brain..... So you have been vehemently fighting for something you don't really know about or understand or maybe believe in?
Oh yeah because you are a WUM.....
I need to read more on the
"random" element you mentioned. It is called allowing the evidence to dictate my argument. Unlike you, I am willing to let the evidence to guide me, not dogma.
Iceman, I am deadly serious, with a touch of a laugh on the side. It's like Nally's comment, I normally disagree with almost everything he says, but his observational humour above was spot on, a bula bus moment.
It's hard for me not to laugh at religion as subjectively I see it alongside Brothers Grimm, Dreamtime stories, Harry Potter or The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. But my lack of belief in a deity is entirely objective. Religion does exist, deities do not.
Quote from: stew on March 22, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.
They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?
If god does not exist, what is the point of a Pope. Unless he intends turning the Catholic church into a secular charity. They could help bail out many countries aroung the world by gifting property to help offset against debt. They could donate money to third world countries. He could offer a loan to Cyprus.
Pope Francis wants to stay for the time being in a simple Vatican residence instead of moving into the spacious and regal papal apartments, the Vatican said today.
The former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina is still living in the Domus Santa Martha, a modern hotel-style residence inside the Vatican City where he stayed during the conclave that elected him on March 13.
Although the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace - which consist of more than a dozen rooms as well as quarters for staff and a terrace - are available, he shows no desire to move in any time soon, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said.
In the past few days Francis has moved out of a single room in the residence, which has some 130 rooms, into a suite so he could have more space to work and to receive people, Lombardi said.
Francis has set a more austere tone for the papacy than his predecessor Benedict XVI, who gained a reputation for sumptuous costumes. Lombardi says the new pope enjoys the residence's community atmosphere where he lives alongside other clergy.
The pope says Mass in its chapel every morning and invites Vatican workers and other guests to attend.
"I don't make long-term predictions, but for now it seems he is experimenting with this type of simple co-habitation," Lombardi said.
"It is still a period of getting used to things, of experimentation. Certainly in this phase he has expressed the desire to stay where he is," he said.
Lombardi said the pope will be using the offices in the Apostolic Palace and its grand, frescoed reception rooms to meet heads of state and delegations, and will continue to appear each Sunday to deliver a blessing from the window of the papal apartments overlooking St. Peter's Square.
Quote from: Declan on March 26, 2013, 03:58:16 PM
Pope Francis wants to stay for the time being in a simple Vatican residence instead of moving into the spacious and regal papal apartments, the Vatican said today.
The former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina is still living in the Domus Santa Martha, a modern hotel-style residence inside the Vatican City where he stayed during the conclave that elected him on March 13.
Although the papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace - which consist of more than a dozen rooms as well as quarters for staff and a terrace - are available, he shows no desire to move in any time soon, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said.
In the past few days Francis has moved out of a single room in the residence, which has some 130 rooms, into a suite so he could have more space to work and to receive people, Lombardi said.
Francis has set a more austere tone for the papacy than his predecessor Benedict XVI, who gained a reputation for sumptuous costumes. Lombardi says the new pope enjoys the residence's community atmosphere where he lives alongside other clergy.
The pope says Mass in its chapel every morning and invites Vatican workers and other guests to attend.
"I don't make long-term predictions, but for now it seems he is experimenting with this type of simple co-habitation," Lombardi said.
"It is still a period of getting used to things, of experimentation. Certainly in this phase he has expressed the desire to stay where he is," he said.
Lombardi said the pope will be using the offices in the Apostolic Palace and its grand, frescoed reception rooms to meet heads of state and delegations, and will continue to appear each Sunday to deliver a blessing from the window of the papal apartments overlooking St. Peter's Square.
I'm liking this man more and more.
Another one for you orangeman ;)
Pope Francis, who is earning a growing reputation as a 'regular guy', surprised his newspaper vendor at home with a phonecall.
Kiosk owner Daniel del Regno said he got a call from the former Archbishop of Buenos Aires to say he would regrettably be cancelling his subscription.
The 36-year-old had been delivering the paper to the archbishop's office since 2005.
He said their relationship was not just commercial but personal since the archbishop baptized del Regno's son in June of last year on the church feast day, Corpus Christi.
Thanks for that Declan - brilliant. Lovely story. Definitely a good guy and down to earth.
I wonder would be run for GAA president next time round ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21949118
Pope Francis shuns grand apartment for two rooms Pope Francis has opted for the simpler surroundings of the Domus Santa Marta hotel-style residence rather than the traditional palatial papal quarters
Pope Francis has decided to shun a grand papal apartment on the top floor of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace in favour of a modest two-room residence.
His spokesman said he was "trying out this type of simple living" in a communal building with other priests.
In doing so he has broken a tradition which is more than a century old.
The decision reinforces the newly-elected Pope's austere reputation. As archbishop of Buenos Aires he refused to move into the Bishop's Palace.
Since the reign of Pope Pius X at the beginning of the 20th Century every pope has occupied the palatial penthouse apartment with more than a dozen rooms, staff quarters, a terrace and extensive views over the city of Rome.
But since his election Pope Francis has been living in a simple two-room suite in the Domus Santa Marta - a hotel-style residence built by Pope John Paul II next to St Peter's Basilica.
And he intends to go on living there for the foreseeable future, according to the Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi.
"This morning he let his fellow cardinals know that he will keep living with them for a certain period of time," Mr Lombardi said.
Quote from: orangeman on March 27, 2013, 11:42:46 AM
Thanks for that Declan - brilliant. Lovely story. Definitely a good guy and down to earth.
I wonder would be run for GAA president next time round ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21949118
Pope Francis shuns grand apartment for two rooms Pope Francis has opted for the simpler surroundings of the Domus Santa Marta hotel-style residence rather than the traditional palatial papal quarters
Pope Francis has decided to shun a grand papal apartment on the top floor of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace in favour of a modest two-room residence.
His spokesman said he was "trying out this type of simple living" in a communal building with other priests.
In doing so he has broken a tradition which is more than a century old.
The decision reinforces the newly-elected Pope's austere reputation. As archbishop of Buenos Aires he refused to move into the Bishop's Palace.
Since the reign of Pope Pius X at the beginning of the 20th Century every pope has occupied the palatial penthouse apartment with more than a dozen rooms, staff quarters, a terrace and extensive views over the city of Rome.
But since his election Pope Francis has been living in a simple two-room suite in the Domus Santa Marta - a hotel-style residence built by Pope John Paul II next to St Peter's Basilica.
And he intends to go on living there for the foreseeable future, according to the Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi.
"This morning he let his fellow cardinals know that he will keep living with them for a certain period of time," Mr Lombardi said.
What the hell has this to do with the GAA?
QuoteWhat the hell has this to do with the GAA?
Nothing. That is probably why it is in the non GAA section, along with the Corny Jokes, Beer, Cycling and Time Travel.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 27, 2013, 06:08:09 PM
QuoteWhat the hell has this to do with the GAA?
Nothing. That is probably why it is in the non GAA section, along with the Corny Jokes, Beer, Cycling and Time Travel.
I assume mayo was referring to the comment of him running for presidency of the GAA.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 22, 2013, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: stew on March 22, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.
They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?
If god does not exist, what is the point of a Pope. Unless he intends turning the Catholic church into a secular charity. They could help bail out many countries aroung the world by gifting property to help offset against debt. They could donate money to third world countries. He could offer a loan to Cyprus.
If God does exist, what's the point in atheism?
Francis is at it again. I'd say there's a few of the top men very nervous around the Vatican at the minute. Francis is going to shake things up there.
Pope Francis will wash the feet of prisoners in a youth detention centre near Rome on Maundy Thursday.
Thousands of pilgrims and tourists are arriving in Rome to attend ceremonies during the holy week ahead of Easter.
The washing of feet on the Thursday before Easter is a Christian tradition commemorating Christ's Last Supper.
It is part of a papal calendar of events running up to Easter, the most important festival in the calendar of the Catholic Church.
On Easter Sunday morning, the new Pope will deliver his first "Urbi et Orbi" message to the city of Rome and to the world.
During his inaugural general audience Wednesday, Francis called for an immediate political solution to the conflict in the Central African Republic after last weekend's coup.
The new leader of the world's 1.2bn Roman Catholics has brought a new sense of simplicity to the Vatican, reports the BBC's David Willey in Rome.
He has decided to live in a small suite in a residence for clerics, eating with other priests in a common dining room, after deciding not to move into the palatial apartments occupied by his predecessors in the Apostolic Palace.
He has again broken with tradition for the foot-washing ceremony, which is normally performed on lay people in one of Rome's basilicas
QuoteFrancis is at it again. I'd say there's a few of the top men very nervous around the Vatican at the minute. Francis is going to shake things up there.
We all remember what happened the last time a Pope tried to "shake" things up ;) ;)
Quote from: stew on March 27, 2013, 06:36:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 22, 2013, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: stew on March 22, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.
They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?
If god does not exist, what is the point of a Pope. Unless he intends turning the Catholic church into a secular charity. They could help bail out many countries aroung the world by gifting property to help offset against debt. They could donate money to third world countries. He could offer a loan to Cyprus.
If God does exist, what's the point in atheism?
God does not exist.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 28, 2013, 02:33:21 PM
Quote from: stew on March 27, 2013, 06:36:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 22, 2013, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: stew on March 22, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.
They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?
If god does not exist, what is the point of a Pope. Unless he intends turning the Catholic church into a secular charity. They could help bail out many countries aroung the world by gifting property to help offset against debt. They could donate money to third world countries. He could offer a loan to Cyprus.
If God does exist, what's the point in atheism?
God does not exist.
Prove it with scientific fact?
Ya Kant! :)
Quote from: Declan on March 28, 2013, 11:01:12 AM
QuoteFrancis is at it again. I'd say there's a few of the top men very nervous around the Vatican at the minute. Francis is going to shake things up there.
We all remember what happened the last time a Pope tried to "shake" things up ;) ;)
Short lived - literally.
Quote from: stew on March 28, 2013, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 28, 2013, 02:33:21 PM
Quote from: stew on March 27, 2013, 06:36:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 22, 2013, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: stew on March 22, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.
They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?
If god does not exist, what is the point of a Pope. Unless he intends turning the Catholic church into a secular charity. They could help bail out many countries aroung the world by gifting property to help offset against debt. They could donate money to third world countries. He could offer a loan to Cyprus.
If God does exist, what's the point in atheism?
God does not exist.
Prove it with scientific fact?
Ya Kant! :)
Of course you can't prove God doesn't exist. But the burden is on you to prove that he DOES exist. As a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist.
A thought provoking, stark homily from Pope Francis on Holy Thursday. He certainly seems to be tearing a lot of the nonsense away and focusing sharply on what it means to be an ordained priest.
(Vatican Radio) Below please find the official text of Pope Francis' Homily for Chrism Mass, Holy Thursday 2013:
(http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-homily-for-chrism-mass-full-text (http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-homily-for-chrism-mass-full-text))
QuoteAs a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist
.
So you don't believe in the Higgs Boson either?
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 28, 2013, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: stew on March 28, 2013, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 28, 2013, 02:33:21 PM
Quote from: stew on March 27, 2013, 06:36:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 22, 2013, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: stew on March 22, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.
They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?
If god does not exist, what is the point of a Pope. Unless he intends turning the Catholic church into a secular charity. They could help bail out many countries aroung the world by gifting property to help offset against debt. They could donate money to third world countries. He could offer a loan to Cyprus.
If God does exist, what's the point in atheism?
God does not exist.
Prove it with scientific fact?
Ya Kant! :)
Of course you can't prove God doesn't exist. But the burden is on you to prove that he DOES exist. As a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist.
Bullshit! Says who? you?
It's called faith and why should the burden be put on one side or the other.
As a general rule brings in your own bias, as a general rule, there is no proof that God does not exist. ;)
Quote from: stew on March 29, 2013, 03:52:59 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 28, 2013, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: stew on March 28, 2013, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 28, 2013, 02:33:21 PM
Quote from: stew on March 27, 2013, 06:36:24 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on March 22, 2013, 03:55:56 PM
Quote from: stew on March 22, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
Iceman, you are wasting your time, cut these boys off, they thrive on this stuff, there are plenty of Athiests out there who have no problem with people of faith but they have no time for God, my da is one of them, the thing is however he, like many don't fixate on Religion like these cubs do.
They are not going to change my mind, nor me theirs, it is pointless to keep going and wasn't this thread supposed to the about a new Pope, not God himself?
If god does not exist, what is the point of a Pope. Unless he intends turning the Catholic church into a secular charity. They could help bail out many countries aroung the world by gifting property to help offset against debt. They could donate money to third world countries. He could offer a loan to Cyprus.
If God does exist, what's the point in atheism?
God does not exist.
Prove it with scientific fact?
Ya Kant! :)
Of course you can't prove God doesn't exist. But the burden is on you to prove that he DOES exist. As a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist.
Bullshit! Says who? you?
It's called faith and why should the burden be put on one side or the other.
As a general rule brings in your own bias, as a general rule, there is no proof that God does not exist. ;)
If you make the claim that God
does exist, then the burden is on you to prove it.
I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I have absolutely no reason to believe he does.
If I was to say that unicorns exist, or the Loch Ness monster exists, would the burden be on you to prove that they don't exist, or on me to prove that they do? Your argument assumes things to be true until you can prove that they're not.
So no, it's not something
I say, it's accepted in both legal and philosophical arguments, that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2013, 03:51:23 PM
QuoteAs a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist
.
So you don't believe in the Higgs Boson either?
I have limited knowledge of physics and don't know enough about research in this area to make a call - it's not something i've thought about.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2013, 03:51:23 PM
QuoteAs a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist
.
So you don't believe in the Higgs Boson either?
The Higgs Boson has been hypothesized, and the Large Hadron Collider has started producing evidence to back it up.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 29, 2013, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2013, 03:51:23 PM
QuoteAs a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist
.
So you don't believe in the Higgs Boson either?
The Higgs Boson has been hypothesized, and the Large Hadron Collider has started producing evidence to back it up.
This I know, what is your point?
Quote from: stew on March 29, 2013, 06:17:43 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 29, 2013, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2013, 03:51:23 PM
QuoteAs a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist
.
So you don't believe in the Higgs Boson either?
The Higgs Boson has been hypothesized, and the Large Hadron Collider has started producing evidence to back it up.
This I know, what is your point?
Maybe you should build yourself a godfinder device, or stop believing fairytails your mammy told you.
Next you'll be telling us there's no Santa ;)
Quote from: stew on March 29, 2013, 06:17:43 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 29, 2013, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2013, 03:51:23 PM
QuoteAs a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist
.
So you don't believe in the Higgs Boson either?
The Higgs Boson has been hypothesized, and the Large Hadron Collider has started producing evidence to back it up.
This I know, what is your point?
My point is that there's scientific evidence to back up the existence of the Higgs. Want me to repeat that? My point is that there's scientific evidence to back up the existence of the Higgs.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 29, 2013, 08:07:18 PM
Quote from: stew on March 29, 2013, 06:17:43 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 29, 2013, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2013, 03:51:23 PM
QuoteAs a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist
.
So you don't believe in the Higgs Boson either?
The Higgs Boson has been hypothesized, and the Large Hadron Collider has started producing evidence to back it up.
This I know, what is your point?
My point is that there's scientific evidence to back up the existence of the Higgs. Want me to repeat that? My point is that there's scientific evidence to back up the existence of the Higgs.
And your point is?
Does the Higgs disprove God?
nah, it does not!
And...?
Quote from: stew on March 29, 2013, 08:42:13 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 29, 2013, 08:07:18 PM
Quote from: stew on March 29, 2013, 06:17:43 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 29, 2013, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2013, 03:51:23 PM
QuoteAs a general rule, if there's no proof that something exists, I'll consider it not to exist
.
So you don't believe in the Higgs Boson either?
The Higgs Boson has been hypothesized, and the Large Hadron Collider has started producing evidence to back it up.
This I know, what is your point?
My point is that there's scientific evidence to back up the existence of the Higgs. Want me to repeat that? My point is that there's scientific evidence to back up the existence of the Higgs.
And your point is?
Does the Higgs disprove God?
nah, it does not!
What's the relevance of that question?
As I've said, if you claim existence of God, then the onus is on you to prove it, not on others to disprove it.
When he does something about the perverts in his church and those that protect them then I'll give him some credit. All this other stuff is just optics.
This one will run for a while I'd say -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22064929
The election of Pope Francis has thrown a spotlight on his conduct as a priest under Argentina's military dictatorship in the late 70s and early 80s, and in particular at what point he found out about one of the country's most shameful episodes.
Nearly a month has passed since the Roman Catholic Church elected its first leader from Latin America and the international media has been treated to a whirlwind blitz of eye-catching tales and images.
Pope Francis appears to be what Argentinians would say is "campechano" - approachable, "matey", even.
He has washed and kissed the feet of women and Muslims, inscribed his autograph on plaster casts of injured pilgrims and has even telephoned his old Buenos Aires news vendor to cancel his newspaper order. And perhaps most eye-catchingly of all, he has said he wants to see as a priority "a poor Church for the poor".
It has all been perceived as a breath of fresh air. The stuffy papacy, which resembled a mediaeval monarchy, some say, is now gone.
But lurking beneath the surface are pressing concerns that threaten to dog Jorge Mario Bergoglio from his time as Jesuit superior and cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church in Argentina.
Within 24 hours of the white smoke from the Sistine Chapel, allegations emerged that he withdrew protection from two of his fellow Jesuits during the early years of the brutal military dictatorship of 1976 to 1983, which resulted in their captivity and torture.
The Vatican acted swiftly to deny the claims. The remaining surviving priest, Fr Francisco Jalics, issued an initial statement saying he was "reconciled with these events". The words appeared ambiguous. Might he be saying he was betrayed but has now forgiven the Pope for his betrayal?
A week later, a more robust statement was issued from his secluded monastery in southern Germany, saying that it was "wrong to assert that our capture took place at the initiative of Father Bergoglio". Any suggestion of a smoking gun appeared to have been extinguished.
Continue reading the main story
More on this story
Mark Dowd presents The Report on BBC R4 on Thursday 11 April at 20:00 BST
Listen via the website
Download the programme
The Best of The Report
But can Bergoglio's efforts to be a witness for justice during the dark days of the military regime compare with those of Oscar Romero, the archbishop from El Salvador, whose uncompromising criticism of government death squads and oppression of the poor led to him being assassinated in 1980 as he celebrated Mass?
"Bergoglio was not a Romero. Very few people were like that," says Ivan Petrella, religious affairs commentator at think tank Fundacion Pensar in his Buenos Aires office.
But if Romero scored 10 on a 10-point scale for his courageous stand, how had the current Pope fared? "I´d say 7.5," says Petrella. "Allegations against him have no basis in evidence."
But there is another story that demands answers - the supremely toxic affair of "disappeared" pregnant women, who gave birth to their children while being held in detention centres. Most of the mothers were murdered and their children handed on to "deserving" couples who were well connected with the brutal military junta.
This is very much a live political issue. A number of the children have discovered the painful truth about their past, while hundreds more still remain blissfully ignorant of their parentage. The campaigning grandmothers assert that many priests and nuns were complicit in what happened and are still at large in society. They show no sign of letting the matter rest.
At first sight, this is not an issue that should threaten Pope Francis. In 2010 he was asked in front of a state tribunal when he first knew of the cases of children being taken from their mothers.
Radio 4's The Report has managed to track down the audio from his testimony in which he says, initially: "Recently, about 10 years ago." Then he pauses, and corrects himself. "No, it must have been around the time of the military junta trial." The mid-1980s, in other words.
Estela de la Cuadra lost five members of her family during the 'dirty war'
However, this is not accepted by Estela de la Cuadra who tells a spine-chilling tale about one mother and child who disappeared.
Estela's five-month pregnant sister, Elena, was seized in February 1977 and gave birth to a daughter, Ana, in July of that year in a local detention centre station where she was being held. Estela's father, Roberto, sought the help of Fr Bergoglio in trying to find out what happened to his daughter.
Estela showed me a letter dated 28 October 1977, signed by Fr Bergoglio, then a Jesuit provincial father. He was writing to a local area bishop on behalf of Mr de la Cuadra. The letter, which Estela showed me, reads as follows:
"I am going to the trouble of introducing Mr Roberto Luis de la Cuadra, with whom I had a conversation.... He will explain to you what it is about."
Estela is adamant that the letter shows that the Pope withheld the truth in court in 2010, but the text shows no such thing. There is no explicit mention of "missing children," just a general reference to a matter of concern. The letter shows Pope Francis using his good offices to help and build bridges.
However, a year after the 2010 court hearing, there was a further inquiry, this time specifically into the cases of "los ninos desaparecidos" (the children who disappeared). This time, lawyers were able to pinpoint the de la Cuadra case in their questions to the then Cardinal Bergoglio.
The Report has obtained a transcript of his responses. He tables answers to 33 questions in which he says, in answer to No 13, "[Roberto de la Cuadra] told me that his daughter had been kidnapped. I don´t recall him telling me if his daughter was pregnant." In a later answer (No 19) , he says he only came to hear about the birth of the child in captivity many years later through media reports.
All of which may well be the case but these answers prompt further questions.
Letter dated 1977 from the then Fr Bergoglio regarding Elena De La Cuadra
The stories of missing children were not kept under wraps in Argentina during military rule. Estela showed me French, Brazilian and Canadian press reports from 1979, which carried out detailed investigations into the phenomenon. There were reports in the English-speaking Buenos Aires Herald, a publication which incurred the wrath of the ruling military junta.
Continue reading the main story
Argentina's dictatorship
1976: Military junta under General Jorge Videla seizes power - thousands of political opponents are rounded up and killed in what becomes known as "the dirty war"
1982: Videla's successor, General Leopoldo Galtieri, orders invasion of British-held Falkland Islands - more than 700 Argentine soldiers killed in its unsuccessful defence
1983: Civilian rule returns to Argentina, and investigations into human rights abuses begin
2010: Videla is sentenced to life imprisonment for murders during his term in office
2012: Videla sentenced to 50 years for overseeing systematic theft of the babies of political prisoners
Moreover, there is TV archive footage of the campaigning mothers and grandmothers from 1979, in silent procession in the Plaza de Mayo, in the very heart of the city of Buenos Aires, holding up pictures of their missing loved ones.
They spoke out to foreign news crews about their families, courageous acts which at one stage ended up with General Galtieri´s regime firing rubber bullets at the women to try and evict them from the square.
The Society of Jesus is an international order with nearly 20,000 priests worldwide. News is circulated widely among the various provinces so if Father Bergoglio did not learn about any of this until 1985, as he said under oath in court, it appears he was leading quite an insulated existence.
In 1998, Bergoglio was made archbishop of Buenos Aires, effectively the titular head of the Argentine Catholic Church and in 2001 he was made a cardinal.
Ten years later, in the 2011 court hearing into the cases of missing children, he was asked if the Church had ever held or was, at the time, currently holding, a commission of enquiry into these matters.
His written reply reads as follows: "I don't know if the hierarchy had such a body during the military dictatorship. It's possible that a lay group of the faithful of a religious congregation set something like that up or is currently doing it. I don't know."
The fate of the 'desaparecidos' remains a political issue in Argentina
We asked the Pope´s press spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, to comment on the issues raised by the story of Estela´s sister and her missing niece, Ana. He replied: "As you know, the case of the de la Cuadra family has already been raised many times and Cardinal Bergoglio has given his answers. I have nothing more to add."
Estela, who lost five of her relatives during the so-called "dirty war" and ended up fleeing the country as a UN refugee, is not giving up her fight: "We have asked Bergoglio to open up the Church archives so we can find out what really happened."
She carries on waiting.