Looks very likely! Will undoubtedly spark off a much needed spiritual revival.
Why?
Pope Francis has announced the the world meeting of families which he attended in Philadelphia will be hosted in Dublin in 2018.
Will the Pope get to Armagh this time though?
Definitely.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 28, 2015, 06:55:56 PM
Definitely.
I fear he will never live that long, the paedophiles in the church will kill him before he makes it to Ireland, the paedophiles within the Church I mean. Best Pontiff ever by the way.
Pope Francis will be nearly 82 if he comes! The decline of the Catholic Church is so rapid at the moment it is hard to see what sort of a reception he'll get even in a short period of 3 years from now. No doubt there will be a lot of people that will turn out out of curiosity, but for many it will be a non event.
Tony
I cannot see how a vist by this Pope, the next Pope or any other Pope will matter.
Sure - a few may go to a big open air mass in a field or two but it won't be a repeat of 1979.
The past is a different country
Considering Ireland is looked upon as a catholic country, why has it taken so long for a Papal visit? I'm sure other countries has had a lot more. Not that I care either way. I'm just saying...
who else is on the bill, brian d'arcy doing the support slot? hopefully security not to tight and we can smuggle a few cans in.
Quote from: BennyCake on September 28, 2015, 07:46:58 PM
Considering Ireland is looked upon as a catholic country, why has it taken so long for a Papal visit? I'm sure other countries has had a lot more. Not that I care either way. I'm just saying...
One quarter of one per cent of the world's Catholics live in Ireland, we are not that important!
Nostalgic for those of us who were there in 1979,and I've seen Popes in Rome on several occasions,being a frequent visitor,but strangely I haven't seen Francis yet.
No doubt a Papal visit would bring the crowds out though perhaps not on the same scale as 1979.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on September 28, 2015, 07:37:46 PM
Tony
I cannot see how a vist by this Pope, the next Pope or any other Pope will matter.
Sure - a few may go to a big open air mass in a field or two but it won't be a repeat of 1979.
The past is a different country
Well said SS. Time and tide waits for no man, the tide has ebbed significantly since 1979 for the Catholic church.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on September 28, 2015, 07:37:46 PM
The past is a different country
Sadly - the place is a cesspit these days.
I was struck by the general comments on the UTV Facebook page,by non Catholics.Aside from the lunatic evangelical fringe the vast majority would welcome a Papal Visit to the North.Now that is a different country from 1979
Quote from: T Fearon on September 28, 2015, 08:08:50 PM
Nostalgic for those of us who were there in 1979,and I've seen Popes in Rome on several occasions,being a frequent visitor,but strangely I haven't seen Francis yet.
No doubt a Papal visit would bring the crowds out though perhaps not on the same scale as 1979.
Surely there must be an auld quiz on the back of a Weetabix box that you can enter to get a private meeting?
Yes,but he hasn't entered it yet ;D
you might be surprised at the amount of young Catholics very much "alive" in their faith. Youth conferences, youth groups and chaplaincies across the North especially have thriving communities. If you take those and add the older generation who would still go to Mass you'll get a great turnout for a Papal visit. You'll also get faith filled families visiting from all over the world - that's why it's called the World Meeting of Families. We've already talked about being back for it and bringing extended family and friends who always wanted to visit Ireland.
Just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it isn't someone else's
Exactly.One would hope that theophobes and anti Catholics would display mature tolerance to a Papal Visit
Quote from: armaghniac on September 28, 2015, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 28, 2015, 07:46:58 PM
Considering Ireland is looked upon as a catholic country, why has it taken so long for a Papal visit? I'm sure other countries has had a lot more. Not that I care either way. I'm just saying...
One quarter of one per cent of the world's Catholics live in Ireland, we are not that important!
It's not quantity, but quality ;)
Maybe I'm wrong, but Pope Francis is such a breath of fresh air, humble and welcoming, that I could imagine not only cultural Catholics but even non-Catholics being drawn to see and hear him. He does have celebrity status, after all.
It'll be huge. Noseyness, sense of occasion, the spectacle of celebrity trumping a spiritual revival, but huge nonetheless.
Quote from: Oraisteach on September 28, 2015, 09:17:47 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but Pope Francis is such a breath of fresh air, humble and welcoming, that I could imagine not only cultural Catholics but even non-Catholics being drawn to see and hear him. He does have celebrity status, after all.
Some might say the same about the Nazi in Buckingham Palace, but I (and many thousands of others) would have no desire to see her.
It would be a fantastic opportunity for all the people of this country, all faiths and none.
The biggest challenge facing society is not difference / lack of faith, its the ever encroaching tide of self interest and self righteousness. Hopefully he will inspire us look into ourselves, as to how we can help the world around us.
I was chatting to my wives friend at the weekend, who is of hindu tradition and buddist faith, and she was mightly impressed by Pope Francis.
Who will do the before show entertainment. These fine honest upstanding lads did it the last time!
(http://cdn2.independent.ie/editorial/felicia/img/bio_cleary/cleary_popevisit.jpg)
Quote from: From the Bunker on September 28, 2015, 09:47:41 PM
Who will do the before show entertainment. These fine honest upstanding lads did it the last time!
(http://cdn2.independent.ie/editorial/felicia/img/bio_cleary/cleary_popevisit.jpg)
Is that the boyo who stole all of Father Ted's raffle money?
Quote from: BennyCake on September 28, 2015, 10:01:52 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on September 28, 2015, 09:47:41 PM
Who will do the before show entertainment. These fine honest upstanding lads did it the last time!
(http://cdn2.independent.ie/editorial/felicia/img/bio_cleary/cleary_popevisit.jpg)
Is that the boyo who stole all of Father Ted's raffle money?
They both were strong advocates to support priestly celibacy and oppose pre-marital sex, abortion, and similar issues. Good to see they stuck stead fast to these morals in their daily lives -
Do as i say but don't do as i do!
J H Christ ye didnt need much ammo to get going with that one did ye?
This thread is about Pope Francis.
If you wanna start another fight with Toni/Tony ye could choose any of about 2 dozen threads.
Anything to bash the Church I suppose...
Jaysus it'll be the largest gathering of nutjobs in a field since the Meath/Mayo final.
We all have our hate figures I suppose....For a certain section of Irish society its the church, another its the Brits, myself?... its mostly Derry.
Both apply their hatred irrelevantly and irrationally.
Hopefully Francis will inspire us to turn that tide.
Ah it's a bit of fun - Was trying to get Mr Fearon going! In fairness to Casey bar him robbing church funds to fund the raising of his love child he did a lot of good work. Especially for the immigrant community in Britain. He was not all bad, or even bad for that matter. Just let his Mickey get the better of him and the Church funds paid the price.
Bishop Casey experienced moments of human weakness.Of course he should have resigned and become a proper father to his child.
In any event the Pope had proper warm up acts in Phoenix Park (where I was) with the likes of James Galway and the Chieftains.
I'd love to see Frank visiting Armagh just to get up the noses of certain planters! I wonder if they'd riot.
I don't foresee any trouble.There will be a handful of free Presbyterian protestors who will be regarded as eccentrics,but the unbridled joy of the masses when a Pope eventually comes to the ecclesiastical capital of Ireland,will be the main story
Quote from: T Fearon on September 29, 2015, 07:10:22 AM
I don't foresee any trouble.There will be a handful of free Presbyterian protestors who will be regarded as eccentrics,but the unbridled joy of the masses when a Pope eventually comes to the ecclesiastical capital of Ireland,will be the main story
Whilst he's in Armagh he could do worse than clout the heads off those bishops and Cardinals who hid the child abuse scandal for so many years.
Quote from: From the Bunker on September 28, 2015, 10:55:36 PM
Ah it's a bit of fun - Was trying to get Mr Fearon going! In fairness to Casey bar him robbing church funds to fund the raising of his love child he did a lot of good work. Especially for the immigrant community in Britain. He was not all bad, or even bad for that matter. Just let his Mickey get the better of him and the Church funds paid the price.
Quote of the year - broke myself laughing when i read that. A1 Bunker ;D
Quote from: BennyCake on September 28, 2015, 06:53:42 PM
Will the Pope get to Armagh this time though?
That might make Sean Brady squirm.
Maybe he could give Geezer some tips. Seriously though as a catholic I don't really care whether he comes or not, a bit like Liz not worth the effort. I have no doubt he is a breath of fresh air but we can judge him on how far into the 20th Century he brings the church...the 21st is still too far.
I think this Pope is a good man and well intentioned. He actually gets it and lives it. Unfortunately, the damage done to the catholic church in this country and worldwide have (justifiably in my book) turned millions off and they won't get to see that Pope Francis is one of the good guys. What he can do to reform and fix the church remains to be seen and as Stew intimated - he should make sure to have his life assurance well paid up!!!!
I for one am I looking forward to seeing Pope Francis (God willing) in Ireland comes 2018. Whether that be Armagh or in Dublin. The current Pope is a good man, trying to make changes and apologise for the past failings of the Church. He has a long way to go and can't do it himself, but he is planting the seeds for the next Pope too, if he will be of the same thinking as him.
This will go in some way towards replacing the Web Summit which is moving to Lisbon.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 29, 2015, 03:12:53 PM
This will go in some way towards replacing the Web Summit which is moving to Lisbon.
I'd not been before, but I was clearing some space to go to that for mywayaccess.com Then I saw the news a few days ago. ffs.
Quote from: ziggysego on September 29, 2015, 03:42:33 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 29, 2015, 03:12:53 PM
This will go in some way towards replacing the Web Summit which is moving to Lisbon.
I'd not been before, but I was clearing some space to go to that for mywayaccess.com Then I saw the news a few days ago. ffs.
This year's event is still in Dublin AFAIK
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/09/29/croke-park-residents-warn-pope-not-to-even-think-about-it/
The people lining up in the comments to wag the finger are the icing in that article.
Quote from: deiseach on September 29, 2015, 04:13:03 PM
The people lining up in the comments to wag the finger are the icing in that article.
Waterford whispers is brilliant (the only good thing to come out of Waterford apart from my nana!) but the comments section in all their articles are fantastic :)
Quote from: macdanger2 on September 29, 2015, 03:52:56 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on September 29, 2015, 03:42:33 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 29, 2015, 03:12:53 PM
This will go in some way towards replacing the Web Summit which is moving to Lisbon.
I'd not been before, but I was clearing some space to go to that for mywayaccess.com Then I saw the news a few days ago. ffs.
This year's event is still in Dublin AFAIK
Brilliant 8)
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 29, 2015, 04:14:30 PM
Waterford whispers is brilliant (the only good thing to come out of Waterford apart from my nana!) but the comments section in all their articles are fantastic :)
I'll give you credit for not saying 'apart from the N24'.
Will there be anyone going to confession in 2018?
He got a rock star reception in the states there last week. Lots of people like this lad, even if not catholic or even religious. And why not, given his message about the poor and his encyclical on the environment? A breath of fresh air!
The Pope,and Papacy as an institution,is a global phenomenon that will attract crowds wherever he may go,or whoever he is.
No, this was different to previous papal visits. Way more hype and excitement. That he has embraced a number of liberal causes added to his personal attraction.
Quote from: ziggysego on September 29, 2015, 04:21:25 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on September 29, 2015, 03:52:56 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on September 29, 2015, 03:42:33 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 29, 2015, 03:12:53 PM
This will go in some way towards replacing the Web Summit which is moving to Lisbon.
I'd not been before, but I was clearing some space to go to that for mywayaccess.com Then I saw the news a few days ago. ffs.
This year's event is still in Dublin AFAIK
Brilliant 8)
Save your money, load of sh1te. It's got way too big and full of hipsters changing the world ;)
Quote from: T Fearon on September 29, 2015, 06:46:59 PM
The Pope,and Papacy as an institution,is a global phenomenon that will attract crowds wherever he may go,or whoever he is.
The institution is fading in Western Europe regardless of the pomp .
Lady Gaga would make a fabulous pope BTW.
Vaseline for sale :P
Quote from: seafoid on September 29, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 29, 2015, 06:46:59 PM
The Pope,and Papacy as an institution,is a global phenomenon that will attract crowds wherever he may go,or whoever he is.
The institution is fading in Western Europe regardless of the pomp .
Lady Gaga would make a fabulous pope BTW.
Trends in the church rise and fall they are measured over centuries not decades or even lifetimes.
100 years from now there is a fair ole chance people will be swarming to church and historians will discuss about the time in early 20th century when the church became unpopular due to scandals. But the outrage faded when the church cleaned up its act and the disgraces of the church faded to memory and then to history.
Similar perhaps to the reformation and counter reformation era.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2015, 06:06:49 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 29, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 29, 2015, 06:46:59 PM
The Pope,and Papacy as an institution,is a global phenomenon that will attract crowds wherever he may go,or whoever he is.
The institution is fading in Western Europe regardless of the pomp .
Lady Gaga would make a fabulous pope BTW.
Trends in the church rise and fall they are measured over centuries not decades or even lifetimes.
100 years from now there is a fair ole chance people will be swarming to church and historians will discuss about the time in early 20th century when the church became unpopular due to scandals. But the outrage faded when the church cleaned up its act and the disgraces of the church faded to memory and then to history.
Similar perhaps to the reformation and counter reformation era.
Or the higher probability is they will be sneering at the gobshites who were sucked in by these cults.
Don't care if he comes or not; just as long as it doesn't cost the state a fortune. Maybe he'll bring a few 100 wheelbarrows of cash to compensate the victims of church abuse. I'd be making sure revenue are hammering those memorabilia sellers too.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 29, 2015, 06:50:58 AM
I'd love to see Frank visiting Armagh just to get up the noses of certain planters! I wonder if they'd riot.
thinking that myself
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2015, 06:06:49 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 29, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 29, 2015, 06:46:59 PM
The Pope,and Papacy as an institution,is a global phenomenon that will attract crowds wherever he may go,or whoever he is.
The institution is fading in Western Europe regardless of the pomp .
Lady Gaga would make a fabulous pope BTW.
Trends in the church rise and fall they are measured over centuries not decades or even lifetimes.
100 years from now there is a fair ole chance people will be swarming to church and historians will discuss about the time in early 20th century when the church became unpopular due to scandals. But the outrage faded when the church cleaned up its act and the disgraces of the church faded to memory and then to history.
Similar perhaps to the reformation and counter reformation era.
The thing is, it's not within the Church's power to turn this around. The scandals are just one factor, and not even the most significant. The biggest thing is that the world has changed. People are more educated and are questioning what was previously accepted as gospel (pardon the pun). The Church has lost its authority (its actual authority, not just its moral authority) even in countries like Ireland, so its ability to influence society (through schools, hospitals, politicians etc.) is greatly diminished. Just look at how many TDs backed the Yes campaign, in defiance of the Church.
It doesn't matter how much the Church cleans up its act, or how much of a force for good it tries to become. To vast and growing numbers of people, it's an irrelevance. To some it is central to their lives, and will remain so, but there's no going back. The trend is one way.
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 30, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
To vast and growing numbers of people, it's an irrelevance.
They may not admit it but how often have you heard of people turning to prayer in their hour of need.
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
;D
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 30, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2015, 06:06:49 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 29, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 29, 2015, 06:46:59 PM
The Pope,and Papacy as an institution,is a global phenomenon that will attract crowds wherever he may go,or whoever he is.
The institution is fading in Western Europe regardless of the pomp .
Lady Gaga would make a fabulous pope BTW.
Trends in the church rise and fall they are measured over centuries not decades or even lifetimes.
100 years from now there is a fair ole chance people will be swarming to church and historians will discuss about the time in early 20th century when the church became unpopular due to scandals. But the outrage faded when the church cleaned up its act and the disgraces of the church faded to memory and then to history.
Similar perhaps to the reformation and counter reformation era.
The thing is, it's not within the Church's power to turn this around. The scandals are just one factor, and not even the most significant. The biggest thing is that the world has changed. People are more educated and are questioning what was previously accepted as gospel (pardon the pun). The Church has lost its authority (its actual authority, not just its moral authority) even in countries like Ireland, so its ability to influence society (through schools, hospitals, politicians etc.) is greatly diminished. Just look at how many TDs backed the Yes campaign, in defiance of the Church.
It doesn't matter how much the Church cleans up its act, or how much of a force for good it tries to become. To vast and growing numbers of people, it's an irrelevance. To some it is central to their lives, and will remain so, but there's no going back. The trend is one way.
Spot on.
If some turned away from the church because of abuse scandals, you have to wonder how strong their faith was.
Quote from: foxcommander on September 30, 2015, 08:20:01 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 30, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
To vast and growing numbers of people, it's an irrelevance.
They may not admit it but how often have you heard of people turning to prayer in their hour of need.
Yes, in desperate time, people do desperate things. But people saying a few prayers when they're in trouble won't reverse the fortunes of the institution.
OK, Tony, I'll bite. What evidence? I thought the essence of faith was believing in something for which there was no empirical evidence? And what's with the silly intellectual remark?
Quote from: BennyCake on September 30, 2015, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 30, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2015, 06:06:49 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 29, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 29, 2015, 06:46:59 PM
The Pope,and Papacy as an institution,is a global phenomenon that will attract crowds wherever he may go,or whoever he is.
The institution is fading in Western Europe regardless of the pomp .
Lady Gaga would make a fabulous pope BTW.
Trends in the church rise and fall they are measured over centuries not decades or even lifetimes.
100 years from now there is a fair ole chance people will be swarming to church and historians will discuss about the time in early 20th century when the church became unpopular due to scandals. But the outrage faded when the church cleaned up its act and the disgraces of the church faded to memory and then to history.
Similar perhaps to the reformation and counter reformation era.
The thing is, it's not within the Church's power to turn this around. The scandals are just one factor, and not even the most significant. The biggest thing is that the world has changed. People are more educated and are questioning what was previously accepted as gospel (pardon the pun). The Church has lost its authority (its actual authority, not just its moral authority) even in countries like Ireland, so its ability to influence society (through schools, hospitals, politicians etc.) is greatly diminished. Just look at how many TDs backed the Yes campaign, in defiance of the Church.
It doesn't matter how much the Church cleans up its act, or how much of a force for good it tries to become. To vast and growing numbers of people, it's an irrelevance. To some it is central to their lives, and will remain so, but there's no going back. The trend is one way.
Spot on.
If some turned away from the church because of abuse scandals, you have to wonder how strong their faith was.
Faith in a church that failed it's people and faith in God should not be confused.
The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
The Church didn't fail anyone.
It didn't fail victims of abuse?
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation
Any proof?
My father would tell a story of a woman in the 1940/50's then in her 70's that ran a pub. Now the toilet facilities in the pub were non existent. In other words if you were caught short you had to go out the back of the premises and do it against a wall. Anyway one day while she was stacking bottles or what ever, she seen a Priest doing what any man would do after a few drinks out draining the spuds. To her bewilderment she could not believe he had a Penis. It just showed you the innocence of the time that she thought Priests were born without one (a penis). The innocence!
Quote from: Maguire01 on September 30, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2015, 06:06:49 AM
Quote from: seafoid on September 29, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 29, 2015, 06:46:59 PM
The Pope,and Papacy as an institution,is a global phenomenon that will attract crowds wherever he may go,or whoever he is.
The institution is fading in Western Europe regardless of the pomp .
Lady Gaga would make a fabulous pope BTW.
Trends in the church rise and fall they are measured over centuries not decades or even lifetimes.
100 years from now there is a fair ole chance people will be swarming to church and historians will discuss about the time in early 20th century when the church became unpopular due to scandals. But the outrage faded when the church cleaned up its act and the disgraces of the church faded to memory and then to history.
Similar perhaps to the reformation and counter reformation era.
The thing is, it's not within the Church's power to turn this around. The scandals are just one factor, and not even the most significant. The biggest thing is that the world has changed. People are more educated and are questioning what was previously accepted as gospel (pardon the pun). The Church has lost its authority (its actual authority, not just its moral authority) even in countries like Ireland, so its ability to influence society (through schools, hospitals, politicians etc.) is greatly diminished. Just look at how many TDs backed the Yes campaign, in defiance of the Church.
It doesn't matter how much the Church cleans up its act, or how much of a force for good it tries to become. To vast and growing numbers of people, it's an irrelevance. To some it is central to their lives, and will remain so, but there's no going back. The trend is one way.
My own opinion ( this is all speculative of course, same as your post) is that the current trend (like all trends) will peak and then begin to decline. In fact the current trend may actual disappear as unlike the Reformation there is no central cause or organisation to rally around and sustain it. Although it ll probably not completely disappear as there will always be people who struggle with the faith.
The current trend is based on individualism as a means of personal fulfillment, which is not attainable or sustainable. Contrary to what you believe, I believe that improving Education and thought will actually help turn the tide against individualism and there is actually personal fulfillment in living your life to the church's message.
Also the church is still the Moral Authority for the Western World. How much of morals of the church does the average agnostic/atheist disagree with? Probably about the same (or less, maybe!) as the average church goer! That tells you they, and more importantly society, haven't really journeyed that far away from the church.
Like Howard Hughes, fabulously wealthy but reclusive,anyone with half a brain will realise sooner or later that the pursuit of riches and fulfilment through these is unattainable,and will search inevitably for a greater meaning.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 01, 2015, 12:05:09 AM
Like Howard Hughes, fabulously wealthy but reclusive,anyone with half a brain will realise sooner or later that the pursuit of riches and fulfilment through these is unattainable,and will search inevitably for a greater meaning.
Just because someone has no religious belief doesn't mean they're in pursuit of riches for fulfillment or otherwise.
And plenty of believers keen on accumulating wealth.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
The longest oxymoron ever.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
Its not about proof Tony, its about faith.
Yes but faith must have some basis all the same
Quote from: T Fearon on October 01, 2015, 12:39:02 AM
Yes but faith must have some basis all the same
Faith must have some basis but thats irrelevant to the point.
Faith doesn't require the slightest bit of proof ...or evidence.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breathhttp://thehealthyjessie.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/steaming-pile-of-shit.png.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
(http://thehealthyjessie.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/steaming-pile-of-shit.png)
"Yes, but faith must have some basis all the same" is NOT evidence. Even Donald Trump speaks with more substance. Cut back on the verbal laxatives. You're producing more crap than usual.
If there was irrefutable evidence it would be fact not faith.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 01, 2015, 06:31:21 AM
If there was irrefutable evidence it would be fact not faith.
Well it was you who claimed there was "evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt". There's clearly no such evidence.
Perhaps this post belongs to the WTF thread but Bob McCartney has said he'd welcome a Papal visit and would like to meet him! Said he was also a regular at St Peters as he brought his Aunt!! :o :o.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 01, 2015, 12:39:02 AM
Yes but faith must have some basis all the same
Cultural tradition and "god of the gaps" can explain it, but it is hardly a robust basis.
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2015, 02:07:07 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 01, 2015, 12:39:02 AM
Yes but faith must have some basis all the same
Cultural tradition and "god of the gaps" can explain it, but it is hardly a robust basis.
Intuition would probably be the predominant basis followed by tradition.
The "God of the Gaps" basis would only be true if it there was an empirical God, which would be contrary to faith.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
OK... this has to be a parody account.
Quote from: Keyboard Warrior on October 01, 2015, 04:01:11 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
OK... this has to be a parody account.
Welcome to the board.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 29, 2015, 02:23:10 PM
I think this Pope is a good man and well intentioned. He actually gets it and lives it. Unfortunately, the damage done to the catholic church in this country and worldwide have (justifiably in my book) turned millions off and they won't get to see that Pope Francis is one of the good guys. What he can do to reform and fix the church remains to be seen and as Stew intimated - he should make sure to have his life assurance well paid up!!!!
Good post.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
The speed of light is 670,616,629 mph or 1,126,540,800 Km.
It takes light from the sun 8.3 minutes to get to earth.
It takes light from the sun 4.4 hours to get to Neptune.
Proxima Centauri is our nearest star at just over 4 light years. [If Voyager II was headed that way it would take about 76,000 years to get there]
The Milky Way is estimated to be between 100,000 - 180,000 light years across.
There are 100 million stars in our galaxy.
Andromeda, the nearest galaxy, is 2.54 million light years away [BTW we are on a collision course so these galaxies will merge in around 5 billion years]
There are as many galaxies in the Universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
So far a few of us have made it to the moon. If we were any good we would be at least trying trying to get a bit further. Any God must consider us a hopelessly failed experiment at this stage.
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 04:32:44 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
The speed of light is 670,616,629 mph or 1,126,540,800 Km.
It takes light from the sun 8.3 minutes to get to earth.
It takes light from the sun 4.4 hours to get to Neptune.
Proxima Centauri is our nearest star at just over 4 light years. [If Voyager II was headed that way it would take about 76,000 years to get there]
The Milky Way is estimated to be between 100,000 - 180,000 light years across.
There are 100 million stars in our galaxy.
Andromeda, the nearest galaxy, is 2.54 million light years away [BTW we are on a collision course so these galaxies will merge in around 5 billion years]
There are as many galaxies in the Universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
So far a few of us have made it to the moon. If we were any good we would be at least trying trying to get a bit further. Any God must consider us a hopelessly failed experiment at this stage.
Matt Damon just grew spuds on Mars - we're doing great
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 04:52:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 04:32:44 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
The speed of light is 670,616,629 mph or 1,126,540,800 Km.
It takes light from the sun 8.3 minutes to get to earth.
It takes light from the sun 4.4 hours to get to Neptune.
Proxima Centauri is our nearest star at just over 4 light years. [If Voyager II was headed that way it would take about 76,000 years to get there]
The Milky Way is estimated to be between 100,000 - 180,000 light years across.
There are 100 million stars in our galaxy.
Andromeda, the nearest galaxy, is 2.54 million light years away [BTW we are on a collision course so these galaxies will merge in around 5 billion years]
There are as many galaxies in the Universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
So far a few of us have made it to the moon. If we were any good we would be at least trying trying to get a bit further. Any God must consider us a hopelessly failed experiment at this stage.
Matt Damon just grew spuds on Mars - we're doing great
Spuds? That always ends well.
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 04:52:32 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 04:32:44 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
The more intellectual among us believe that there is a purpose to life beyond simply breathing,eating,working and sleeping until one draws one's last breath.We also believe that there is enough general evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a man was once crucified on a cross yet three days later,arose from the dead.
The speed of light is 670,616,629 mph or 1,126,540,800 Km.
It takes light from the sun 8.3 minutes to get to earth.
It takes light from the sun 4.4 hours to get to Neptune.
Proxima Centauri is our nearest star at just over 4 light years. [If Voyager II was headed that way it would take about 76,000 years to get there]
The Milky Way is estimated to be between 100,000 - 180,000 light years across.
There are 100 million stars in our galaxy.
Andromeda, the nearest galaxy, is 2.54 million light years away [BTW we are on a collision course so these galaxies will merge in around 5 billion years]
There are as many galaxies in the Universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
So far a few of us have made it to the moon. If we were any good we would be at least trying trying to get a bit further. Any God must consider us a hopelessly failed experiment at this stage.
Matt Damon just grew spuds on Mars - we're doing great
Spuds? That always ends well.
Is there a link between each of these posts or am I missing something?
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 04:32:44 PM
There are as many galaxies in the Universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
I thought it was that there are many more
stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on Earth.
Quote from: deiseach on October 01, 2015, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 04:32:44 PM
There are as many galaxies in the Universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
I thought it was that there are many more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on Earth.
Possibly.
Which documentary were you watching?
EDIT: Google brought this answer:
Approximate number of galaxies in the universe:
200,000,000,000 (200 billion)
Approximate number of grains of sand on Earth:
7,500,000,000,000,000,000 (7.5 quintillion)
Approximate number of stars in the universe:
70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70 sextillion)So you are correct.
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 01, 2015, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 04:32:44 PM
There are as many galaxies in the Universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
I thought it was that there are many more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on Earth.
Possibly.
Which documentary were you watching?
EDIT: Google brought this answer:
Approximate number of galaxies in the universe:
200,000,000,000 (200 billion)
Approximate number of grains of sand on Earth:
7,500,000,000,000,000,000 (7.5 quintillion)
Approximate number of stars in the universe:
70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70 sextillion)
So you are correct.
Hang on now, is that current grains of sand? Grains of sand there has ever been? or potential grains of sand?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 05:15:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 01, 2015, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 04:32:44 PM
There are as many galaxies in the Universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
I thought it was that there are many more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on Earth.
Possibly.
Which documentary were you watching?
EDIT: Google brought this answer:
Approximate number of galaxies in the universe:
200,000,000,000 (200 billion)
Approximate number of grains of sand on Earth:
7,500,000,000,000,000,000 (7.5 quintillion)
Approximate number of stars in the universe:
70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70 sextillion)
So you are correct.
Hang on now, is that current grains of sand? Grains of sand there has ever been? or potential grains of sand?
Or current stars, stars that ever existed or potential stars?
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 05:19:02 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 05:15:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 01, 2015, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 01, 2015, 04:32:44 PM
There are as many galaxies in the Universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
I thought it was that there are many more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on Earth.
Possibly.
Which documentary were you watching?
EDIT: Google brought this answer:
Approximate number of galaxies in the universe:
200,000,000,000 (200 billion)
Approximate number of grains of sand on Earth:
7,500,000,000,000,000,000 (7.5 quintillion)
Approximate number of stars in the universe:
70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70 sextillion)
So you are correct.
Hang on now, is that current grains of sand? Grains of sand there has ever been? or potential grains of sand?
Or current stars, stars that ever existed or potential stars?
Exactly...so which is it? Do dry dust particles count? What if they wet?
The Devil is in the detail here. You really need to iron this out Muppet and fully set out the criteria!
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2015, 02:07:07 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 01, 2015, 12:39:02 AM
Yes but faith must have some basis all the same
Cultural tradition and "god of the gaps" can explain it, but it is hardly a robust basis.
Intuition would probably be the predominant basis followed by tradition.
The "God of the Gaps" basis would only be true if it there was an empirical God, which would be contrary to faith.
You don't think people rationalize and explain faith based on the concept of god of the gaps?
I don't get your meaning regarding the empirical god bit.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
She became a Christian later in life.
He met her to re-enforce his very public message about the importance of the traditional family - there plenty of Catholic commentary out there on it
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
She's not even catholic (well isn't now at least). She was "saved" recently which means the four marriages no longer count and she is not in fact a hypocrite! ::)
But yeah, the pope is mistaken here. She is no martyr or persecuted victim fighting the "good fight".
All this woman needs to do to satisfy her "conscience" is to resign her position. If you can't meet the requirements of the job, there are plenty out there who can.
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2015, 05:53:25 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 01, 2015, 02:07:07 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 01, 2015, 12:39:02 AM
Yes but faith must have some basis all the same
Cultural tradition and "god of the gaps" can explain it, but it is hardly a robust basis.
Intuition would probably be the predominant basis followed by tradition.
The "God of the Gaps" basis would only be true if it there was an empirical God, which would be contrary to faith.
You don't think people rationalize and explain faith based on the concept of god of the gaps?
I don't get your meaning regarding the empirical god bit.
I just meant a physical God, or one that can be proved to physically exist with empirical evidence
Some/Many people do use a God of the Gaps of course to reinforce they faith but that isnt true faith. Probably why many lose their faith in fact, when they discover that the Gaps can be physically explained.
True faith must come from within...intuition is probably the best way of putting it but I dont think its completely accurate term either.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
She became a Christian later in life.
He met her to re-enforce his very public message about the importance of the traditional family - there plenty of Catholic commentary out there on it
One would have thought he could have picked a better example than a right wing nutjob, who is a pawn for political opportunists, hucksters and snake oil salesmen like Huckabee and Cruz (who were falling over themselves to visit her in jail). The fact the she was "saved" after her four marriages does not save her from the sin of hypocrisy - as a sinner, surely she should have followed Jesus' teachings of judge not, lest ye be judged?
And if she was truly a principled Christian, she would have sacrificed her salary and standing in the community by resigning from her job, and stating exactly why she felt she had to do so. Instead she is trying to keep the gig, whilst still denying other Americans their constitutional rights. As Pope Francis should know, you can't be half crucified. He picked the wrong "martyr" to visit.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
She became a Christian later in life.
He met her to re-enforce his very public message about the importance of the traditional family - there plenty of Catholic commentary out there on it
One would have thought he could have picked a better example than a right wing nutjob, who is a pawn for political opportunists, hucksters and snake oil salesmen like Huckabee and Cruz (who were falling over themselves to visit her in jail). The fact the she was "saved" after her four marriages does not save her from the sin of hypocrisy - as a sinner, surely she should have followed Jesus' teachings of judge not, lest ye be judged?
And if she was truly a principled Christian, she would have sacrificed her salary and standing in the community by resigning from her job, and stating exactly why she felt she had to do so. Instead she is trying to keep the gig, whilst still denying other Americans their constitutional rights. As Pope Francis should know, you can't be half crucified. He picked the wrong "martyr" to visit.
I don't know how she is a hypocrite. She admits her wrongdoings - she isn't championing adultery today, she isn't advocating marriage and re-marriage. Can't someone repent and be forgiven and move on?
The constitution allows religious freedom and calls for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion. I agree she could quit but she was elected and the majority of people therefore supported her appointment knowing full well who she was and what she stood for. Someone else can issue the licenses (as has happened).
the Pope is giving the message that you dont want to hear. He is all for traditional marriage. He is all for loving everyone and calling everyone out of their sin.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 06:43:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
She became a Christian later in life.
He met her to re-enforce his very public message about the importance of the traditional family - there plenty of Catholic commentary out there on it
One would have thought he could have picked a better example than a right wing nutjob, who is a pawn for political opportunists, hucksters and snake oil salesmen like Huckabee and Cruz (who were falling over themselves to visit her in jail). The fact the she was "saved" after her four marriages does not save her from the sin of hypocrisy - as a sinner, surely she should have followed Jesus' teachings of judge not, lest ye be judged?
And if she was truly a principled Christian, she would have sacrificed her salary and standing in the community by resigning from her job, and stating exactly why she felt she had to do so. Instead she is trying to keep the gig, whilst still denying other Americans their constitutional rights. As Pope Francis should know, you can't be half crucified. He picked the wrong "martyr" to visit.
I don't know how she is a hypocrite. She admits her wrongdoings - she isn't championing adultery today, she isn't advocating marriage and re-marriage. Can't someone repent and be forgiven and move on?
The constitution allows religious freedom and calls for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion. I agree she could quit but she was elected and the majority of people therefore supported her appointment knowing full well who she was and what she stood for. Someone else can issue the licenses (as has happened).
the Pope is giving the message that you dont want to hear. He is all for traditional marriage. He is all for loving everyone and calling everyone out of their sin.
Cool.
If we all judge it just right, will our deathbeds suffice?
The point is she ran for a federal mandated office in a country with a secular constitution and is now calling foul that the constitution has been upheld. Remember there was no amendment to the constitution. Gay marriage was simple held to be allowable under the constitution.
As for hypocrisy, it is hypocritical for someone with three failed marriages to lecture others on the sanctity or not of their unions, no matter whether she is a different person or not, saved or not, Tea Partier or not. It is the very essence of the sin of hypocrisy, and unlike Jesus, who tried to understand the sinner, she is simply judging and punishing those who hold a different view of the secular institution of marriage. There was an honorable and religiously consistent way for her to make her protest and she chose not to do so. No one would make any mention of her previous history if she did not persist in examining the mote in her neighbours eye - another no no in biblical terms.
The citizens of America should not have to rely on "someone else" issuing licenses rather then the elected mandated official. It may surprise you but the way democracy works is when you are elected you represent your entire constituency, not just the part that voted for you, especially if you are in an administrative, non legislative role. You'd have to wonder what the reaction would be if she took the same course because she was a Muslim and her faith forbade it?
You'll excuse me if I tell you I'll speak for myself on what I interpret the Pope's message to be. I don't consider homosexuality to be a sin, and according to reports from the Vatican, neither does a fairly substantial portion of the Curia. Ironic, no?
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 06:43:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
She became a Christian later in life.
He met her to re-enforce his very public message about the importance of the traditional family - there plenty of Catholic commentary out there on it
One would have thought he could have picked a better example than a right wing nutjob, who is a pawn for political opportunists, hucksters and snake oil salesmen like Huckabee and Cruz (who were falling over themselves to visit her in jail). The fact the she was "saved" after her four marriages does not save her from the sin of hypocrisy - as a sinner, surely she should have followed Jesus' teachings of judge not, lest ye be judged?
And if she was truly a principled Christian, she would have sacrificed her salary and standing in the community by resigning from her job, and stating exactly why she felt she had to do so. Instead she is trying to keep the gig, whilst still denying other Americans their constitutional rights. As Pope Francis should know, you can't be half crucified. He picked the wrong "martyr" to visit.
I don't know how she is a hypocrite. She admits her wrongdoings - she isn't championing adultery today, she isn't advocating marriage and re-marriage. Can't someone repent and be forgiven and move on?
The constitution allows religious freedom and calls for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion. I agree she could quit but she was elected and the majority of people therefore supported her appointment knowing full well who she was and what she stood for. Someone else can issue the licenses (as has happened).
the Pope is giving the message that you dont want to hear. He is all for traditional marriage. He is all for loving everyone and calling everyone out of their sin.
Could you please quote the section of the constitution that call for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion?
Does that include the Federal government as an employer?
"Truthiness" - almost as good as the truth.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 06:43:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
She became a Christian later in life.
He met her to re-enforce his very public message about the importance of the traditional family - there plenty of Catholic commentary out there on it
One would have thought he could have picked a better example than a right wing nutjob, who is a pawn for political opportunists, hucksters and snake oil salesmen like Huckabee and Cruz (who were falling over themselves to visit her in jail). The fact the she was "saved" after her four marriages does not save her from the sin of hypocrisy - as a sinner, surely she should have followed Jesus' teachings of judge not, lest ye be judged?
And if she was truly a principled Christian, she would have sacrificed her salary and standing in the community by resigning from her job, and stating exactly why she felt she had to do so. Instead she is trying to keep the gig, whilst still denying other Americans their constitutional rights. As Pope Francis should know, you can't be half crucified. He picked the wrong "martyr" to visit.
I don't know how she is a hypocrite. She admits her wrongdoings - she isn't championing adultery today, she isn't advocating marriage and re-marriage. Can't someone repent and be forgiven and move on?
The constitution allows religious freedom and calls for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion. I agree she could quit but she was elected and the majority of people therefore supported her appointment knowing full well who she was and what she stood for. Someone else can issue the licenses (as has happened).
the Pope is giving the message that you dont want to hear. He is all for traditional marriage. He is all for loving everyone and calling everyone out of their sin.
Someone is issuing the licenses after the courts ordered it. She could have done that from the start, but she wanted to grandstand and have her 15 minutes. She has no right to deny these people marriage licenses and should have been impeached.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 07:18:48 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 06:43:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
She became a Christian later in life.
He met her to re-enforce his very public message about the importance of the traditional family - there plenty of Catholic commentary out there on it
One would have thought he could have picked a better example than a right wing nutjob, who is a pawn for political opportunists, hucksters and snake oil salesmen like Huckabee and Cruz (who were falling over themselves to visit her in jail). The fact the she was "saved" after her four marriages does not save her from the sin of hypocrisy - as a sinner, surely she should have followed Jesus' teachings of judge not, lest ye be judged?
And if she was truly a principled Christian, she would have sacrificed her salary and standing in the community by resigning from her job, and stating exactly why she felt she had to do so. Instead she is trying to keep the gig, whilst still denying other Americans their constitutional rights. As Pope Francis should know, you can't be half crucified. He picked the wrong "martyr" to visit.
I don't know how she is a hypocrite. She admits her wrongdoings - she isn't championing adultery today, she isn't advocating marriage and re-marriage. Can't someone repent and be forgiven and move on?
The constitution allows religious freedom and calls for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion. I agree she could quit but she was elected and the majority of people therefore supported her appointment knowing full well who she was and what she stood for. Someone else can issue the licenses (as has happened).
the Pope is giving the message that you dont want to hear. He is all for traditional marriage. He is all for loving everyone and calling everyone out of their sin.
Could you please quote the section of the constitution that call for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion?
Does that include the Federal government as an employer?
"Truthiness" - almost as good as the truth.
My apologies - it was the civil rights act of 1964 that I was talking about - not the constitution. Makes for interesting reading though....
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm)
Read the section under religious accommodation.
She is not issuing a religious marriage certificate, or working for a religious institution Iceman, so her religion is completely irrelevant.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 10:11:19 PM
She is not issuing a religious marriage certificate, or working for a religious institution Iceman, so her religion is completely irrelevant.
I don't think there is anything in there that says she has to be issuing a religous marriage certificate.
What she was doing or being asked to do went against her religious beliefs and accommodation has been made as a result to change her duties. I'm just pointing out what happened.
The Pope met her, the Pope supports what she is doing and says that moral law has to come before the constitution:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/)
You don't have to agree with what he says - I'm just clarifying his position as reported.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 10:32:43 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 10:11:19 PM
She is not issuing a religious marriage certificate, or working for a religious institution Iceman, so her religion is completely irrelevant.
I don't think there is anything in there that says she has to be issuing a religous marriage certificate.
What she was doing or being asked to do went against her religious beliefs and accommodation has been made as a result to change her duties. I'm just pointing out what happened.
The Pope met her, the Pope supports what she is doing and says that moral law has to come before the constitution:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/)
You don't have to agree with what he says - I'm just clarifying his position as reported.
Her duties changed because she didnt want to stay in jail and she couldnt get the boot.
Try working in a bank and refuse to issue loans because its usury...you'd be out on yer ear!
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
Or maybe like God he sees two dudes shafting one another up the arse and agrees with God that it is an abomination in the eyes of God, he is, after, an employee of the Church of Rome!
::)
Maybe Christians need to align their views with the socialists of the world and agree with everything the far left, msnbc watching liberals say, it would make life easier!
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
lets just hope she doesn't refuse to bake a cake
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 10:32:43 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 10:11:19 PM
She is not issuing a religious marriage certificate, or working for a religious institution Iceman, so her religion is completely irrelevant.
I don't think there is anything in there that says she has to be issuing a religous marriage certificate.
What she was doing or being asked to do went against her religious beliefs and accommodation has been made as a result to change her duties. I'm just pointing out what happened.
The Pope met her, the Pope supports what she is doing and says that moral law has to come before the constitution:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/)
You don't have to agree with what he says - I'm just clarifying his position as reported.
He's very much wrong, as is anyone else who believes it.
Quote from: gallsman on October 02, 2015, 12:01:50 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 10:32:43 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 10:11:19 PM
She is not issuing a religious marriage certificate, or working for a religious institution Iceman, so her religion is completely irrelevant.
I don't think there is anything in there that says she has to be issuing a religous marriage certificate.
What she was doing or being asked to do went against her religious beliefs and accommodation has been made as a result to change her duties. I'm just pointing out what happened.
The Pope met her, the Pope supports what she is doing and says that moral law has to come before the constitution:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/)
You don't have to agree with what he says - I'm just clarifying his position as reported.
He's very much wrong, as is anyone else who believes it.
Fack ye are some boy, an authority on everything, the Pope is a Religious man, he is head of a Church that is a billion strong and he adheres the Gospel, I think I will take his opinion over the likes of yours all day long and twice on the Sabbath!
Homosexuals deserve to be treated equally and with respect, that does not mean that everyone has to agree that they be allowed to marry.
Yet your previous post refers to "two dudes who shaft each other up the arse". Respect for homosexuals just oozes out of you, doesn't it?
Take his opinion? What do you mean by that? If referring to my specific point about "moral law" superseding the constitution of the country you profess to love? That the laws of the church (a church you've had some serious issues with in the past) are more important than the laws of man?
Or, as usual, have you flown off the handle to have a wee rant at me without even understanding the context of the conversation?
Quote from: gallsman on October 02, 2015, 12:01:50 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 10:32:43 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 10:11:19 PM
She is not issuing a religious marriage certificate, or working for a religious institution Iceman, so her religion is completely irrelevant.
I don't think there is anything in there that says she has to be issuing a religous marriage certificate.
What she was doing or being asked to do went against her religious beliefs and accommodation has been made as a result to change her duties. I'm just pointing out what happened.
The Pope met her, the Pope supports what she is doing and says that moral law has to come before the constitution:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/)
You don't have to agree with what he says - I'm just clarifying his position as reported.
He's very much wrong, as is anyone else who believes it.
Moral law can't supersede the law of man?
What about in regard to slavery? Slavery was legal. If you lived in this country at the time and you found slaves on the run it was your constitutional duty to return them to their rightful owner. Would you? Or would you let moral law supersede man's law?
In other countries the stoning of women is part of the law - given the situation and the opportunity would you stand idly by while it happened or intervene because morally its wrong?
Quote from: The Iceman on October 02, 2015, 12:44:39 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 02, 2015, 12:01:50 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 10:32:43 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 01, 2015, 10:11:19 PM
She is not issuing a religious marriage certificate, or working for a religious institution Iceman, so her religion is completely irrelevant.
I don't think there is anything in there that says she has to be issuing a religous marriage certificate.
What she was doing or being asked to do went against her religious beliefs and accommodation has been made as a result to change her duties. I'm just pointing out what happened.
The Pope met her, the Pope supports what she is doing and says that moral law has to come before the constitution:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/)
You don't have to agree with what he says - I'm just clarifying his position as reported.
He's very much wrong, as is anyone else who believes it.
Moral law can't supersede the law of man?
What about in regard to slavery? Slavery was legal. If you lived in this country at the time and you found slaves on the run it was your constitutional duty to return them to their rightful owner. Would you? Or would you let moral law supersede man's law?
In other countries the stoning of women is part of the law - given the situation and the opportunity would you stand idly by while it happened or intervene because morally its wrong?
Don't think he meant "can't". The way I read it, his objection is to "has to".
Obviously it depends on what issue you are talking about, as with your examples.
I see laws as morals clarified fleshed out, so it pretty straight forward that they must come before law. Dont see how anyone could see it any other way.
Part of the problem with morals is that they can be vague and grey, overlapping, a total mishmash and personal. Laws are black and white with no common sense.
Conscientious objection is a different thing tho and difficult one to handle within the confines of law.
Because everyone has different morals! Yours tell you that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage is wrong, mine don't. A jihadist thinks is moral to blow a load of non believers into smithereens in the service of Allah, mine don't.
It's about what's right by human decency, not what's moral a defined by your religious faith.
Quote from: gallsman on October 02, 2015, 06:39:13 AM
Because everyone has different morals! Yours tell you that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage is wrong, mine don't. A jihadist thinks is moral to blow a load of non believers into smithereens in the service of Allah, mine don't.
It's about what's right by human decency, not what's moral a defined by your religious faith.
Is that directed at me? ;D ;D ;D
Also I think you'll find that most people's morals in Western society are pretty much the same which is why our laws are pretty much the same. Which is what allows society to function and civilisation to develop. I wonder what unifying force could have allowed our morals to develop in such a collective manner?
So the correct morals as defined by Human decency? Now there's a nebulous term if there ever was one
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 02, 2015, 07:05:53 AM
Is that directed at me? ;D ;D ;D
No.
Most Western morals are the same? Really? Where have you drawn this from? Have you statistics to clarify it? Laws are pretty much the same as a result of this? Bollocks. The USA is in the west, and capital punishment is legal. Ireland is located in the west and it's not. You don't think that's a pretty big difference?!
Did I say correct morals are defined by human decency? Where?
Quote from: gallsman on October 02, 2015, 07:58:05 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 02, 2015, 07:05:53 AM
Is that directed at me? ;D ;D ;D
No.
Most Western morals are the same? Really? Where have you drawn this from? Have you statistics to clarify it? Laws are pretty much the same as a result of this? Bollocks. The USA is in the west, and capital punishment is legal. Ireland is located in the west and it's not. You don't think that's a pretty big difference?!
Did I say correct morals are defined by human decency? Where?
Phew ;)
I drew this from living and travelling in different countries that are Western and non Western. If you are judging it from only having lived in one country then I could understand you would see any difference to any others as a big difference, but believe me they can be grouped. Freedom of speech, acceptance of poverty, treatment of women, acceptance of corruption, are only a few examples that would have a common level of tolerance throughout the West but not in other cultures. The death penalty is one that the USA is catching up quickly with the rest of the West, they have always been rather slow. The few remaining ones are done humanely ;). But just for comparison many countries hang people in public and leave them there for all to see.
As I said before morals are a fuzzy mess, something you can only gauge from interacting with people, I presume you are being ironic by asking for stats? Spotty Paint?
You said "what is right by human decency" to be "right" in this context would be to be morally correct. No? If not that's fine maybe you could explain further?
My point is that laws should ideally be shaped by human decency - respect for all mankind etc.
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation
Teachings on contraception has failed millions in Africa for starters. Who was the church failing when the centuries of covered up child abuse came to light? I will tell you everyone that ever believed in it as a guiding light in their life, the children themselves and their families obviously. The church failing noone is like saying Jimmy saville did a lot of good for charity and music. Ignore the bad bits and look at the bigger picture eh?
Quote from: stew on October 01, 2015, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
Or maybe like God he sees two dudes shafting one another up the arse and agrees with God that it is an abomination in the eyes of God, he is, after, an employee of the Church of Rome!
::)
Maybe Christians need to align their views with the socialists of the world and agree with everything the far left, msnbc watching liberals say, it would make life easier!
Or he could ask himself if it is such an abomination, why did God create gay people? Or is that too much of a logical leap for you.
BTW you've got a real problem with gay people and the act of gay sex - to the extent that you could almost be accused of over compensation. You should tone it down or maybe find some other outlet for your frustrations over homosexuality.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 09:49:00 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 07:18:48 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 06:43:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 06:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 01, 2015, 05:55:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 01, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
I see the Vatican have admitted that the Pope did give a private meeting to Kim Davies. She is the woman who is citing her religious faith (she is a Baptist) as a reason for not carrying out her duties as a county clerk by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Irony alert - despite her public statements where she states that marriage is an institution sanctified and given by the Almighty, she is currently on her fourth husband. So the Pope gets her in and apparently gives her Rosary beads and tells her to "stay strong"
Plus ca change....
Very disappointing - maybe PR is this guy's only strong point.
She became a Christian later in life.
He met her to re-enforce his very public message about the importance of the traditional family - there plenty of Catholic commentary out there on it
One would have thought he could have picked a better example than a right wing nutjob, who is a pawn for political opportunists, hucksters and snake oil salesmen like Huckabee and Cruz (who were falling over themselves to visit her in jail). The fact the she was "saved" after her four marriages does not save her from the sin of hypocrisy - as a sinner, surely she should have followed Jesus' teachings of judge not, lest ye be judged?
And if she was truly a principled Christian, she would have sacrificed her salary and standing in the community by resigning from her job, and stating exactly why she felt she had to do so. Instead she is trying to keep the gig, whilst still denying other Americans their constitutional rights. As Pope Francis should know, you can't be half crucified. He picked the wrong "martyr" to visit.
I don't know how she is a hypocrite. She admits her wrongdoings - she isn't championing adultery today, she isn't advocating marriage and re-marriage. Can't someone repent and be forgiven and move on?
The constitution allows religious freedom and calls for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion. I agree she could quit but she was elected and the majority of people therefore supported her appointment knowing full well who she was and what she stood for. Someone else can issue the licenses (as has happened).
the Pope is giving the message that you dont want to hear. He is all for traditional marriage. He is all for loving everyone and calling everyone out of their sin.
Could you please quote the section of the constitution that call for employers to make changes to a person's job or duties if it contradicts their religion?
Does that include the Federal government as an employer?
"Truthiness" - almost as good as the truth.
My apologies - it was the civil rights act of 1964 that I was talking about - not the constitution. Makes for interesting reading though....
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm)
Read the section under religious accommodation.
Read it Iceman - did you? If she was covered under this, she wouldn't have been sent to jail. Fairly self evident.
As to the accommodation that has been reached now, as you should know, it was her agreeing not to hamper the issuing of licenses - however, her impeachment is still very much a live issue as she is not covered under the act above because she has not been discriminated against. Rather she is discriminating against other US citizens and disregarding a ruling of the US supreme court.
As for the analogies with slavery, it amazes me how easily we put white, Christian people in the role of victims. just to get the chronology here right, it was gay people who were the victims of discrimination (in all areas of their lives) and after a long stuggle they have received equal status. So the example you guys really should be using is - what if you wanted to continue owning slaves after the Emancipation Act because it (and it is) sanctioned by the Bible? That is the correct analogy.
Pope Francis's meeting with Kim Davis "should not be considered a form of support of her position", the Vatican has said.
After days of confusion, the Vatican issued a statement clarifying Pope Francis's September 24th meeting with Ms Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who has become a focal point in the gay marriage debate in the US because of her refusal to sign marriage licences for gay couples.
The Vatican said Pope Francis met with many people during his US stay, due to his "kindness and availability".
The statement said: "The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Ms Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects."
Ms Davis, a Rowan County clerk, spent five days in jail for defying a series of federal court orders to issue same-sex marriage licences.
She said earlier this week that she and her husband met briefly with the pope at the Vatican's embassy in Washington and that he encouraged her to "stay strong".
She later said in an interview: "Just knowing that the pope is on track with what we're doing and agreeing, you know, it kind of validates everything."
The Vatican statement made clear the pope expressed no such sentiments.
News of the audience sent shockwaves through the US church, with Ms Davis's supporters saying it showed the pope backed her cause and opponents questioning whether the pope had been duped into meeting with her and truly knew the details of her case.
Initially the Vatican only reluctantly confirmed the meeting but offered no comment.
From the start of his six-day tour, Pope Francis encouraged Americans to preserve religious freedom, which he called "one of America's most precious possessions".
But he listed it among a list of many other issues, including immigration, climate change and the death penalty.
As he left the country, Pope Francis told reporters who inquired that he did not know Ms Davis's case in detail, but he defended conscientious objection as a human right.
"It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right," Pope Francis said.
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 10:37:50 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation
Teachings on contraception has failed millions in Africa for starters. Who was the church failing when the centuries of covered up child abuse came to light? I will tell you everyone that ever believed in it as a guiding light in their life, the children themselves and their families obviously. The church failing noone is like saying Jimmy saville did a lot of good for charity and music. Ignore the bad bits and look at the bigger picture eh?
Do you honestly think AIDS in Africa was caused by a lack of contraception?
Quote from: BennyCake on October 02, 2015, 05:20:10 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 10:37:50 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation
Teachings on contraception has failed millions in Africa for starters. Who was the church failing when the centuries of covered up child abuse came to light? I will tell you everyone that ever believed in it as a guiding light in their life, the children themselves and their families obviously. The church failing noone is like saying Jimmy saville did a lot of good for charity and music. Ignore the bad bits and look at the bigger picture eh?
Do you honestly think AIDS in Africa was caused by a lack of contraception?
No of course not but when aids is rife throughout many African countries does the church teachings on contraception help people or fail them as a responsible organisation?
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 05:32:24 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 02, 2015, 05:20:10 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 10:37:50 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation
Teachings on contraception has failed millions in Africa for starters. Who was the church failing when the centuries of covered up child abuse came to light? I will tell you everyone that ever believed in it as a guiding light in their life, the children themselves and their families obviously. The church failing noone is like saying Jimmy saville did a lot of good for charity and music. Ignore the bad bits and look at the bigger picture eh?
Do you honestly think AIDS in Africa was caused by a lack of contraception?
No of course not but when aids is rife throughout many African countries does the church teachings on contraception help people or fail them as a responsible organisation?
the Church teaching on sex outside of traditional marriage might help? The Church teaching on chastity in and outside of traditional marriage might help? Very narrow viewpoint to blame the Church and their teaching just on contraception and blame them for the Aids epidemic......
Quote from: The Iceman on October 02, 2015, 05:36:08 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 05:32:24 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 02, 2015, 05:20:10 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 10:37:50 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation
Teachings on contraception has failed millions in Africa for starters. Who was the church failing when the centuries of covered up child abuse came to light? I will tell you everyone that ever believed in it as a guiding light in their life, the children themselves and their families obviously. The church failing noone is like saying Jimmy saville did a lot of good for charity and music. Ignore the bad bits and look at the bigger picture eh?
Do you honestly think AIDS in Africa was caused by a lack of contraception?
No of course not but when aids is rife throughout many African countries does the church teachings on contraception help people or fail them as a responsible organisation?
the Church teaching on sex outside of traditional marriage might help? The Church teaching on chastity in and outside of traditional marriage might help? Very narrow viewpoint to blame the Church and their teaching just on contraception and blame them for the Aids epidemic......
It's not that the Church is responsible for AIDS in Africa, but its position is far from helpful in mitigating the spread of the disease. The Church's teaching on sex might sound great (to you anyway) in theory, but we're living in the real world.
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. If we're talking effectiveness rather than morality, than Church teaching is not the way to go.
BTW I might have rushed to judgement on Franno - going by Declan's post and the links below.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the_vatican_confirms_that_pope_francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/pope_francis_met_with_openly_gay_couple_and_unlike_kim_davis_who_ambushed_him_he_did_so_intentionally/
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. If we're talking effectiveness rather than morality, than Church teaching is not the way to go.
BTW I might have rushed to judgement on Franno - going by Declan's post and the links below.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the_vatican_confirms_that_pope_francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/pope_francis_met_with_openly_gay_couple_and_unlike_kim_davis_who_ambushed_him_he_did_so_intentionally/
Empirical evidence? I doubt that. Empirical evidence would say Chasity is more effective
Statistical evidence maybe?
Regardless the same could also be held to be true for using protection.It gives the impression that its safe to do it thereby casualises s*x. In the real world many people dont use it.
Both methods are fine in theory but are both flawed in the real world.
Quote from: gallsman on October 02, 2015, 09:55:03 AM
My point is that laws should ideally be shaped by human decency - respect for all mankind etc.
I agree but my point is that human decency, respect for mankind, whatever way you want to put it comes under the umbrella term for morals.
Therefore...
.... Laws are shaped by Morals
I doubt that the people involved weren't thinking of whether the church approved of contraception or not when about to do the deed.
The churches guidelines are clear - don't do it at all outside marriage. If you go against that then who is at fault?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 02, 2015, 08:56:35 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. If we're talking effectiveness rather than morality, than Church teaching is not the way to go.
BTW I might have rushed to judgement on Franno - going by Declan's post and the links below.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the_vatican_confirms_that_pope_francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/pope_francis_met_with_openly_gay_couple_and_unlike_kim_davis_who_ambushed_him_he_did_so_intentionally/
Empirical evidence? I doubt that. Empirical evidence would say Chasity is more effective
Statistical evidence maybe?
Regardless the same could also be held to be true for using protection.It gives the impression that its safe to do it thereby casualises s*x. In the real world many people dont use it.
Both methods are fine in theory but are both flawed in the real world.
Jesus Christ Joe, at least look up the word before you try and be smart. Empirical means based on or verifiable by observation or experience, rather than theory or pure logic. Hence statistical evidence is just one version of empiricism.
However, positing that people's religious faith or that specific Catholic teachings will effect their sexual behaviour definitely resides in the theoretical realm. The realm of the outlandish theory.
Here's some of that empirical i.e. statistical evidence you were getting confused by
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/597-abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-ineffective-unethical-and-poor-public-health
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 02, 2015, 07:36:49 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 02, 2015, 05:36:08 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 05:32:24 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 02, 2015, 05:20:10 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 10:37:50 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation
Teachings on contraception has failed millions in Africa for starters. Who was the church failing when the centuries of covered up child abuse came to light? I will tell you everyone that ever believed in it as a guiding light in their life, the children themselves and their families obviously. The church failing noone is like saying Jimmy saville did a lot of good for charity and music. Ignore the bad bits and look at the bigger picture eh?
Do you honestly think AIDS in Africa was caused by a lack of contraception?
No of course not but when aids is rife throughout many African countries does the church teachings on contraception help people or fail them as a responsible organisation?
the Church teaching on sex outside of traditional marriage might help? The Church teaching on chastity in and outside of traditional marriage might help? Very narrow viewpoint to blame the Church and their teaching just on contraception and blame them for the Aids epidemic......
It's not that the Church is responsible for AIDS in Africa, but its position is far from helpful in mitigating the spread of the disease. The Church's teaching on sex might sound great (to you anyway) in theory, but we're living in the real world.
Can't the same be said for everyone's response to the gun problem in the US? Gun crime and death is rife and our response is take away the guns - seems logical and right?
Aids and death is rife and the Church says stop having sex and thats not logical and right....
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 09:33:14 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 02, 2015, 08:56:35 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. If we're talking effectiveness rather than morality, than Church teaching is not the way to go.
BTW I might have rushed to judgement on Franno - going by Declan's post and the links below.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the_vatican_confirms_that_pope_francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/pope_francis_met_with_openly_gay_couple_and_unlike_kim_davis_who_ambushed_him_he_did_so_intentionally/
Empirical evidence? I doubt that. Empirical evidence would say Chasity is more effective
Statistical evidence maybe?
Regardless the same could also be held to be true for using protection.It gives the impression that its safe to do it thereby casualises s*x. In the real world many people dont use it.
Both methods are fine in theory but are both flawed in the real world.
Jesus Christ Joe, at least look up the word before you try and be smart. Empirical means based on or verifiable by observation or experience, rather than theory or pure logic. Hence statistical evidence is just one version of empiricism.
However, positing that people's religious faith or that specific Catholic teachings will effect their sexual behaviour definitely resides in the theoretical realm. The realm of the outlandish theory.
Here's some of that empirical i.e. statistical evidence you were getting confused by
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/597-abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-ineffective-unethical-and-poor-public-health
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
Its sensory evidence and empirical evidence would say that the best way to prevent STDs is through chastity.
Statistical results are based on theory or logic, which as you pointed out are not empirical. They could be manipulated to be empirical but I very much doubt that these are. But since there is no actual proper stats in these articles its hard to know. "Majority" for example would not be considered to constitute empirical evidence.
In any case its irrelevant to your point as these studies seem to be based on kids educated by American Protestant Evangelical Principles. These are virtually irrelevant for the Catholic church and Catholic Education in Africa. Some of the stuff mentioned and told to these kids is pure lies, the Catholic church advocates proper education on ALL options but advocates chastity.
However I am sure you have statistical evidence of Catholic educated kids in Africa as well compared against statistical evidence of the general African population?
Did you really just equate two people having sex with each other with one human being shooting another?
Quote from: The Iceman on October 02, 2015, 10:21:51 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 02, 2015, 07:36:49 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 02, 2015, 05:36:08 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 05:32:24 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 02, 2015, 05:20:10 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on October 02, 2015, 10:37:50 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on September 30, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
The Church didn't fail anyone.For over 2000 years it has led millions of people to eternal salvation
Teachings on contraception has failed millions in Africa for starters. Who was the church failing when the centuries of covered up child abuse came to light? I will tell you everyone that ever believed in it as a guiding light in their life, the children themselves and their families obviously. The church failing noone is like saying Jimmy saville did a lot of good for charity and music. Ignore the bad bits and look at the bigger picture eh?
Do you honestly think AIDS in Africa was caused by a lack of contraception?
No of course not but when aids is rife throughout many African countries does the church teachings on contraception help people or fail them as a responsible organisation?
the Church teaching on sex outside of traditional marriage might help? The Church teaching on chastity in and outside of traditional marriage might help? Very narrow viewpoint to blame the Church and their teaching just on contraception and blame them for the Aids epidemic......
It's not that the Church is responsible for AIDS in Africa, but its position is far from helpful in mitigating the spread of the disease. The Church's teaching on sex might sound great (to you anyway) in theory, but we're living in the real world.
Can't the same be said for everyone's response to the gun problem in the US? Gun crime and death is rife and our response is take away the guns - seems logical and right?
Aids and death is rife and the Church says stop having sex and thats not logical and right....
I don't get parallel with the gun problem. It just doesn't work for me.
People will have sex (once again, we're in the real world). There's a way for them to do it safely. The Church opposes it, for no logical reason, even if it's sex between a married couple.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 02, 2015, 10:53:37 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 09:33:14 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 02, 2015, 08:56:35 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. If we're talking effectiveness rather than morality, than Church teaching is not the way to go.
BTW I might have rushed to judgement on Franno - going by Declan's post and the links below.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the_vatican_confirms_that_pope_francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/pope_francis_met_with_openly_gay_couple_and_unlike_kim_davis_who_ambushed_him_he_did_so_intentionally/
Empirical evidence? I doubt that. Empirical evidence would say Chasity is more effective
Statistical evidence maybe?
Regardless the same could also be held to be true for using protection.It gives the impression that its safe to do it thereby casualises s*x. In the real world many people dont use it.
Both methods are fine in theory but are both flawed in the real world.
Jesus Christ Joe, at least look up the word before you try and be smart. Empirical means based on or verifiable by observation or experience, rather than theory or pure logic. Hence statistical evidence is just one version of empiricism.
However, positing that people's religious faith or that specific Catholic teachings will effect their sexual behaviour definitely resides in the theoretical realm. The realm of the outlandish theory.
Here's some of that empirical i.e. statistical evidence you were getting confused by
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/597-abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-ineffective-unethical-and-poor-public-health
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
Its sensory evidence and empirical evidence would say that the best way to prevent STDs is through chastity.
Statistical results are based on theory or logic, which as you pointed out are not empirical. They could be manipulated to be empirical but I very much doubt that these are. But since there is no actual proper stats in these articles its hard to know. "Majority" for example would not be considered to constitute empirical evidence.
In any case its irrelevant to your point as these studies seem to be based on kids educated by American Protestant Evangelical Principles. These are virtually irrelevant for the Catholic church and Catholic Education in Africa. Some of the stuff mentioned and told to these kids is pure lies, the Catholic church advocates proper education on ALL options but advocates chastity.
However I am sure you have statistical evidence of Catholic educated kids in Africa as well compared against statistical evidence of the general African population?
Joe, sorry to come across as a bit of a pedant here, but the highlighted passage above not only shows that you know nothing about the different scientific schools of investigation, you also seem to have a problem with basic English.
Empirical evidence is based on observation - so you observe a phenomenon - in this case sex education in American schools - in the process of this observation you measure your outcomes - in this case the rate of pregnancy and STD infection in American schools - you compile this into statistics and you publish your results. That is empiricism.
The other school is theoretical - take astrophysics for instance - in this case advanced maths are used to posit a theory - say the existence of a Higgs Boson particle - but there is no observable evidence - so the scientists work essentially backwards, saying that it must exist, and then build something like the particle accelerator in CERN to prove it. Which is what you are doing when you say the best way to pevent STDS is through chastity - you think it is, but you can't prove it physically. Unfortunately your theory wll stay unproved because it is wrong and has already been proven so, empirically.
Statistical results are based on theory or logic, which as you pointed out are not empirical.I'm sorry Joe - this is the most factually incorrect sentence ever produced on these forums. A - statistical results are not based on theory or logic, which was the point of my post. Statistical results are based on observation and measurement, which makes them - you guessed it - empirical. B - I never pointed out that statistical results are not empirical.
They could be manipulated to be empirical but I very much doubt that these are. This makes no sense, logically or grammatically.
But since there is no actual proper stats in these articles its hard to know. "Majority" for example would not be considered to constitute empirical evidence.There are stats Joe, you just have to read down to get them. I did you the courtesy of posting the links, at least try and read them.
In any case its irrelevant to your point as these studies seem to be based on kids educated by American Protestant Evangelical Principles. These are virtually irrelevant for the Catholic church and Catholic Education in Africa. Both studies were based on schools who had chastity only sex education, schools who had chastity and contraception, and schools who had contraception only (that's a simplification but you get the point). There was no distinction made between religions.
the Catholic church advocates proper education on ALL options but advocates chastity.Eh, I don't think so Joe - certainly there is no central edict from the Vatican on this, except for the ban on artificial birth control, and very much depends on local tradition and leadership, as we see in Africa and Latin America especially. Letting students know there are other options, certainly does not constitute "educating" them in their use.
As for the African statistics - they are there, first page of google - but given you missed the point of my original post so much, and didn't bother reading the links, find them yourself.
Quote from: gallsman on October 02, 2015, 10:53:52 PM
Did you really just equate two people having sex with each other with one human being shooting another?
equating two issues and drawing parallels to their responses isn't the same thing.....
Aids is killing people in Africa. The Church bans sex outside of traditional marriage and you all go crazy.
Guns are killing people in America and you say ban the guns.
Why can the response to problems not be the same? Because the Church proposed it?
It's a tired old debate anyway. Blaming the church yet again.
What about the spread of Aids in America? Who's fault is that? Look it up. Who is the main transmitter of the Aids virus in America?
Quote from: The Iceman on October 03, 2015, 12:51:56 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 02, 2015, 10:53:52 PM
Did you really just equate two people having sex with each other with one human being shooting another?
equating two issues and drawing parallels to their responses isn't the same thing.....
Aids is killing people in Africa. The Church bans sex outside of traditional marriage and you all go crazy.
Guns are killing people in America and you say ban the guns.
Why can the response to problems not be the same? Because the Church proposed it?
It's a tired old debate anyway. Blaming the church yet again.
What about the spread of Aids in America? Who's fault is that? Look it up. Who is the main transmitter of the Aids virus in America?
The response to them can't be the same because they are different problems. Also, one of the bans proposed actually works - look at the Australian model in banning guns and reducing mass shootings. Whereas the Church response to ban sex outside of traditional marriage is proved not to work to stop the spread of AIDS - it just doesn't. Now, one hand I recognise the right of the church to uphold Christian morality and theology, it's like a club and if you want to be in the club, you have to obey the rules etc. However if one of these rules is contributing materially to the spread of a deadly but very preventable disease, then I think all involved should start thinking of practicalities.
I believe the saving of lives trumps theology, every time.
By the way, you are now conflating the spread of AIDS in Africa with the spread of AIDS in the USA - which are two very different phenomena. So be careful. And before you reveal your patient zero, make sure you have a good source. Handy hint - Weekly World News or Alex Jones don't count.
You can see where this is going from a mile out.
I dont mind you being pedantic Tiger but attempting to insult and belittle me might make you feel better but it makes you look like a bit of an eejit. Especially as you dont seem to be able to get the concept that statistic analysis and manipulation is based on theory. Here's a wee tip.... ask for clarification if you don't understand something, you'll be more knowledgeable for it.
It seems that you are getting mixed up in the actual evidence being empirical and the collective data being empirical. Evidence from an experiment can give empirical data but when compared against other results it becomes a statistic. To try and make sense of the collective results statistical analysis is used, if they come within a range they can be considered empirical.
Your links didn't have any tabulated data just various tidbits speckled through the articles and certainly no statistical manipulation applied to that data that could make it empirical.
I dont know why you are are so insulted as to not post your links especially since it is you who is dishing out the insults and when I spent time reading your links, which as it turned out where irrelevant to AIDs in Africa and the Catholic Church.
Anyway I googled "catholic church aids africa statistics" for your study you wouldnt post and all the statistics I could find were ones that showed that catholics and catholic country's in Africa have lower rates of HIV infection rates.
Here's one, although I know you will scoff at the site
http://shamelesspopery.com/what-impact-does-catholic-teaching-have-on-aids-in-africa/
I must say I am surprised at these stats as the mainstream press has led us to believe that the Catholic church teaching is actually having the opposite effect, and then didnt that leading AIDS guy support the church's position? Africa is a very different place to the West with education in particular not being anywhere near as good as the West. Basically what that equates to on the ground is when you give a guy a condom and tell him he will make him safer, he thinks he can ride the country. But that's just not the case at all, he is in fact putting himself and others more at risk.
Now with that said I wouldn't be on board with some thing senior Catholics clerics in Africa have said about condoms regarding AIDS. Monogamous relationships and Chasity are the best method for preventing the spread of AIDS and HIV. However if that aint possible then protection is the best backup although by no means sure fire as Chasity. The church is not really in a position to put in that IF in its doctrine. "If you gonna sin, sin like this" :D However they absolutely should educate people and inform them of the options and consequences, they should not spread lies about condoms or oppose their availability. Education is key.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 03, 2015, 01:20:06 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 03, 2015, 12:51:56 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 02, 2015, 10:53:52 PM
Did you really just equate two people having sex with each other with one human being shooting another?
equating two issues and drawing parallels to their responses isn't the same thing.....
Aids is killing people in Africa. The Church bans sex outside of traditional marriage and you all go crazy.
Guns are killing people in America and you say ban the guns.
Why can the response to problems not be the same? Because the Church proposed it?
It's a tired old debate anyway. Blaming the church yet again.
What about the spread of Aids in America? Who's fault is that? Look it up. Who is the main transmitter of the Aids virus in America?
The response to them can't be the same because they are different problems. Also, one of the bans proposed actually works - look at the Australian model in banning guns and reducing mass shootings. Whereas the Church response to ban sex outside of traditional marriage is proved not to work to stop the spread of AIDS - it just doesn't. Now, one hand I recognise the right of the church to uphold Christian morality and theology, it's like a club and if you want to be in the club, you have to obey the rules etc. However if one of these rules is contributing materially to the spread of a deadly but very preventable disease, then I think all involved should start thinking of practicalities.
Apparently it doesn't, but its proving to be the most effective method in Africa where the disease is most rampant
Quote
I believe the saving of lives trumps theology, every time.
That is the basis of Catholic theology, all life is sacred, remember?
Quote
By the way, you are now conflating the spread of AIDS in Africa with the spread of AIDS in the USA - which are two very different phenomena. So be careful. And before you reveal your patient zero, make sure you have a good source. Handy hint - Weekly World News or Alex Jones don't count.
You can see where this is going from a mile out.
I agree, nip it in the bud Ice, its irrelevant
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2015, 07:54:41 AM
I dont mind you being pedantic Tiger but attempting to insult and belittle me might make you feel better but it makes you look like a bit of an eejit. Especially as you dont seem to be able to get the concept that statistic analysis and manipulation is based on theory. Here's a wee tip.... ask for clarification if you don't understand something, you'll be more knowledgeable for it.
It seems that you are getting mixed up in the actual evidence being empirical and the collective data being empirical. Evidence from an experiment can give empirical data but when compared against other results it becomes a statistic. To try and make sense of the collective results statistical analysis is used, if they come within a range they can be considered empirical.
Your links didn't have any tabulated data just various tidbits speckled through the articles and certainly no statistical manipulation applied to that data that could make it empirical.
I dont know why you are are so insulted as to not post your links especially since it is you who is dishing out the insults and when I spent time reading your links, which as it turned out where irrelevant to AIDs in Africa and the Catholic Church.
Anyway I googled "catholic church aids africa statistics" for your study you wouldnt post and all the statistics I could find were ones that showed that catholics and catholic country's in Africa have lower rates of HIV infection rates.
Here's one, although I know you will scoff at the site
http://shamelesspopery.com/what-impact-does-catholic-teaching-have-on-aids-in-africa/
I must say I am surprised at these stats as the mainstream press has led us to believe that the Catholic church teaching is actually having the opposite effect, and then didnt that leading AIDS guy support the church's position? Africa is a very different place to the West with education in particular not being anywhere near as good as the West. Basically what that equates to on the ground is when you give a guy a condom and tell him he will make him safer, he thinks he can ride the country. But that's just not the case at all, he is in fact putting himself and others more at risk.
Now with that said I wouldn't be on board with some thing senior Catholics clerics in Africa have said about condoms regarding AIDS. Monogamous relationships and Chasity are the best method for preventing the spread of AIDS and HIV. However if that aint possible then protection is the best backup although by no means sure fire as Chasity. The church is not really in a position to put in that IF in its doctrine. "If you gonna sin, sin like this" :D However they absolutely should educate people and inform them of the options and consequences, they should not spread lies about condoms or oppose their availability. Education is key.
Joe, it is clear from the above that you don't know what you're talking about. Whether that is science or language is the thing that is under discussion.
http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
Try that - it's a beginners site, but should make some things clear to you. I'll spare you the embarassment of asking you what theory statistics are based on, given that statistics are part of the quantitative reseach method, one of the two two methods that form the backbone of empiricism.
As for the link to your stats? I gave you peer researched papers which you discard because they don't back up your bias. You give me that site. Well done. Enjoy your time in the echo chamber.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 03, 2015, 09:11:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2015, 07:54:41 AM
I dont mind you being pedantic Tiger but attempting to insult and belittle me might make you feel better but it makes you look like a bit of an eejit. Especially as you dont seem to be able to get the concept that statistic analysis and manipulation is based on theory. Here's a wee tip.... ask for clarification if you don't understand something, you'll be more knowledgeable for it.
It seems that you are getting mixed up in the actual evidence being empirical and the collective data being empirical. Evidence from an experiment can give empirical data but when compared against other results it becomes a statistic. To try and make sense of the collective results statistical analysis is used, if they come within a range they can be considered empirical.
Your links didn't have any tabulated data just various tidbits speckled through the articles and certainly no statistical manipulation applied to that data that could make it empirical.
I dont know why you are are so insulted as to not post your links especially since it is you who is dishing out the insults and when I spent time reading your links, which as it turned out where irrelevant to AIDs in Africa and the Catholic Church.
Anyway I googled "catholic church aids africa statistics" for your study you wouldnt post and all the statistics I could find were ones that showed that catholics and catholic country's in Africa have lower rates of HIV infection rates.
Here's one, although I know you will scoff at the site
http://shamelesspopery.com/what-impact-does-catholic-teaching-have-on-aids-in-africa/
I must say I am surprised at these stats as the mainstream press has led us to believe that the Catholic church teaching is actually having the opposite effect, and then didnt that leading AIDS guy support the church's position? Africa is a very different place to the West with education in particular not being anywhere near as good as the West. Basically what that equates to on the ground is when you give a guy a condom and tell him he will make him safer, he thinks he can ride the country. But that's just not the case at all, he is in fact putting himself and others more at risk.
Now with that said I wouldn't be on board with some thing senior Catholics clerics in Africa have said about condoms regarding AIDS. Monogamous relationships and Chasity are the best method for preventing the spread of AIDS and HIV. However if that aint possible then protection is the best backup although by no means sure fire as Chasity. The church is not really in a position to put in that IF in its doctrine. "If you gonna sin, sin like this" :D However they absolutely should educate people and inform them of the options and consequences, they should not spread lies about condoms or oppose their availability. Education is key.
Joe, it is clear from the above that you don't know what you're talking about. Whether that is science or language is the thing that is under discussion.
http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
Try that - it's a beginners site, but should make some things clear to you. I'll spare you the embarassment of asking you what theory statistics are based on, given that statistics are part of the quantitative reseach method, one of the two two methods that form the backbone of empiricism.
As for the link to your stats? I gave you peer researched papers which you discard because they don't back up your bias. You give me that site. Well done. Enjoy your time in the echo chamber.
Tiger the only thing that your scoffing proves is that you dont understand what I am talking about.
Your link simply proves my point.I said that statistics can be manipulated to make data empirical. Statistical manipulation is based on mathematical theory. You do get that maths and numbers are theory?
Although I must concede I only read the abstract of your 2nd study, a closer study of their data manipulation and it would appear to be empirically proven for America at least.
However it is completely irrelevant to the Catholic Church and AIDS in Africa. Mine at least was relevant and while the source may be bias I presume their figures are right they look to be pretty close according to wikipedia. Data backing this position is the only data I could find while googling this subject area. Those that countered this position did not use any demographic data or studies to back it up. It also seems the debate on the Catholic Church and AIDS in Africa have gone very quiet in recent years.
To the contrary that this is echo chambers for myself, I was much surprised to find this out as I had been led to believe it was to the opposite by mainstream media, but I could not find the data to back this up that you had mentioned but refused to post.
But in a way it actually makes sense. Condoms 80% effective, Chasity 100% effective against the spread of AIDS/HIV. Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite. Both are prone to deviation but couple this with the former 2, and this amplifies the danger of promoting condoms, especially in an uneducated society to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV.
Quit while you're (well) behind ffs. a Fearonesque muddying of the waters fools no one. https://youtu.be/9wWUc8BZgWE
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2015, 06:04:35 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 03, 2015, 09:11:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2015, 07:54:41 AM
I dont mind you being pedantic Tiger but attempting to insult and belittle me might make you feel better but it makes you look like a bit of an eejit. Especially as you dont seem to be able to get the concept that statistic analysis and manipulation is based on theory. Here's a wee tip.... ask for clarification if you don't understand something, you'll be more knowledgeable for it.
It seems that you are getting mixed up in the actual evidence being empirical and the collective data being empirical. Evidence from an experiment can give empirical data but when compared against other results it becomes a statistic. To try and make sense of the collective results statistical analysis is used, if they come within a range they can be considered empirical.
Your links didn't have any tabulated data just various tidbits speckled through the articles and certainly no statistical manipulation applied to that data that could make it empirical.
I dont know why you are are so insulted as to not post your links especially since it is you who is dishing out the insults and when I spent time reading your links, which as it turned out where irrelevant to AIDs in Africa and the Catholic Church.
Anyway I googled "catholic church aids africa statistics" for your study you wouldnt post and all the statistics I could find were ones that showed that catholics and catholic country's in Africa have lower rates of HIV infection rates.
Here's one, although I know you will scoff at the site
http://shamelesspopery.com/what-impact-does-catholic-teaching-have-on-aids-in-africa/
I must say I am surprised at these stats as the mainstream press has led us to believe that the Catholic church teaching is actually having the opposite effect, and then didnt that leading AIDS guy support the church's position? Africa is a very different place to the West with education in particular not being anywhere near as good as the West. Basically what that equates to on the ground is when you give a guy a condom and tell him he will make him safer, he thinks he can ride the country. But that's just not the case at all, he is in fact putting himself and others more at risk.
Now with that said I wouldn't be on board with some thing senior Catholics clerics in Africa have said about condoms regarding AIDS. Monogamous relationships and Chasity are the best method for preventing the spread of AIDS and HIV. However if that aint possible then protection is the best backup although by no means sure fire as Chasity. The church is not really in a position to put in that IF in its doctrine. "If you gonna sin, sin like this" :D However they absolutely should educate people and inform them of the options and consequences, they should not spread lies about condoms or oppose their availability. Education is key.
Joe, it is clear from the above that you don't know what you're talking about. Whether that is science or language is the thing that is under discussion.
http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
Try that - it's a beginners site, but should make some things clear to you. I'll spare you the embarassment of asking you what theory statistics are based on, given that statistics are part of the quantitative reseach method, one of the two two methods that form the backbone of empiricism.
As for the link to your stats? I gave you peer researched papers which you discard because they don't back up your bias. You give me that site. Well done. Enjoy your time in the echo chamber.
Tiger the only thing that your scoffing proves is that you dont understand what I am talking about.
Your link simply proves my point.I said that statistics can be manipulated to make data empirical. Statistical manipulation is based on mathematical theory. You do get that maths and numbers are theory?
Although I must concede I only read the abstract of your 2nd study, a closer study of their data manipulation and it would appear to be empirically proven for America at least.
However it is completely irrelevant to the Catholic Church and AIDS in Africa. Mine at least was relevant and while the source may be bias I presume their figures are right they look to be pretty close according to wikipedia. Data backing this position is the only data I could find while googling this subject area. Those that countered this position did not use any demographic data or studies to back it up. It also seems the debate on the Catholic Church and AIDS in Africa have gone very quiet in recent years.
To the contrary that this is echo chambers for myself, I was much surprised to find this out as I had been led to believe it was to the opposite by mainstream media, but I could not find the data to back this up that you had mentioned but refused to post.
But in a way it actually makes sense. Condoms 80% effective, Chasity 100% effective against the spread of AIDS/HIV. Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite. Both are prone to deviation but couple this with the former 2, and this amplifies the danger of promoting condoms, especially in an uneducated society to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV.
Joe, seriously, stop embarassing yourself. You don't know what the scientific method is. Arguing with you is like talking to a recalcitrant child. You are using words you don't understand.
I said that statistics can be manipulated to make data empirical. Statistical manipulation is based on mathematical theory. There is literally no sense in this sentence. Data that is gathered by observation and measurement is always empirical. The use of statistical manipulation (which you haven't defined by the way - look it up and come back to me) is merely another way of analysing data which has already been empirically gathered. Good Jesus, you need a dictionary.
Statistical manipulation is based on mathematical theory. You do get that maths and numbers are theory?Ok I'm going to make this very simple for you. Statistical analysis is based on mathematical principles which are observable and measurable, such as arithmetic. Some strains of maths are based on theorems such as geometry. However, the difference between the scientific method (empiricism) and the hypothetical method (theory) is that rather than measuring a phenomena, the scientist posits a theory (like evolution) and then they work backwards to try and find proof to validate it. And finally, statistical manipulation is a way of skewing empirically gathered data to fit a pre-conceived bias. So you should stop using the phrase, it takes away what little credibility you have.
Although I must concede I only read the abstract of your 2nd study, a closer study of their data manipulation and it would appear to be empirically proven for America at least. Cheers, thanks, specialist subject the bleedin' obvious.
But in a way it actually makes sense. Condoms 80% effective, Chasity 100% effective against the spread of AIDS/HIV. Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite. This is a bogus statistic and a pure example of what statistical manipulation is all about. Condoms, if used properly, are high 90s in the prevention of HIV. Chasitity (ie the avoidance of any sexual contact) of course is 100% - if people stick to it. Which they don't as every peer reviewed, reputable study says, no matter what their public piety makes them profess. Here's a hint - google "Africa HIV rates abstinence only sex education" and tell me what you come up with.
Actually don't bother. Good Jesus.
"Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite."
I am trying hard to get my head around this sentence.
Condoms promote promiscuity? Fair enough, it is arguable. But people make the decision to go and buy them before they use them. So I would suggest the condoms are to protect the users, they don't create the users.
But this...'Chastity the opposite'.
What does that mean?
Chastity promotes the opposite of promiscuity, which I reckon is chastity? So chastity promotes chastity? That is hardly it.
Maybe he meant no condoms promotes chastity? Which would be hilarious. Ugliness would be far more effect than no condoms. Maybe the Vatican should look into this?
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2015, 06:47:49 PM
"Condoms promote promiscuity, Chasity the opposite."
I am trying hard to get my head around this sentence.
Condoms promote promiscuity? Fair enough, it is arguable. But people make the decision to go and buy them before they use them. So I would suggest the condoms are to protect the users, they don't create the users.
But this...'Chastity the opposite'.
What does that mean?
Chastity promotes the opposite of promiscuity, which I reckon is chastity? So chastity promotes chastity? That is hardly it.
Maybe he meant no condoms promotes chastity? Which would be hilarious. Ugliness would be far more effect than no condoms. Maybe the Vatican should look into this?
LOLOLOL.
Buck away compadres and feck the begrudgers!
FFS Tiger seriously its not that hard. As well you know I don't mean manipulate the Data to get it to read something contrary to what it found. I mean manipulate it to make sense of it. All data must be manipulated to make sense of it. There is criteria for manipulating the data to make it empirical. Alot of data especially in regards to demographics would not be considered empirical evidence as it is not collected under controlled conditions soit could only demonstrate certain things rather than actually prove them.
Sorry to tell you but pure Maths is theory, concept might be a better lay way of describing it but whenever it boils down to it basics a few assumptions must be allowed and all theories of maths derive from those. You can apply the theory to prove things but maths is theory, arithmetic that you mentioned for example is know as number theory.
If that 80% is wrong fair enough, but I took it from an article talking about how effective condoms where so I assumed it would skew it in the best direction for the articles argument. Could there be a discrepancy between controlled conditions and field conditions? In any case its irrelevant to my point
Your search makes interesting reading there is obliviously a lot of conflicting info and opinions out there. Alot of the focus seems to be on Uganda where there was a dramatic fall in the infection rate, and many top AIDs scientists say that abstinence was key. But it now seems to be climbing again in Uganda... There is also other countries where condoms are widely available and it continues to rise. I still have nt seen any stats connecting the Catholic's to higher rates of HIV only to the contrary.
An open mind is required on the solutions to Africa and not the arrogant approach that what works in the West should work there also.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 03, 2015, 09:42:18 PM
FFS Tiger seriously its not that hard. As well you know I don't mean manipulate the Data to get it to read something contrary to what it found. I mean manipulate it to make sense of it. All data must be manipulated to make sense of it. There is criteria for manipulating the data to make it empirical. Alot of data especially in regards to demographics would not be considered empirical evidence as it is collected under controlled conditions soit could only demonstrate certain things rather than actually prove them.
Sorry to tell you but pure Maths is theory, concept might be a better lay way of describing it but whenever it boils down to it basics a few assumptions must be allowed and all theories of maths derive from those. You can apply the theory to prove things but maths is theory, arithmetic that you mentioned for example is know as number theory.
If that 80% is wrong fair enough, but I took it from an article talking about how effective condoms where so I assumed it would skew it in the best direction for the articles argument. Could there be a discrepancy between controlled conditions and field conditions? In any case its irrelevant to my point
Your search makes interesting reading there is obliviously a lot of conflicting info and opinions out there. Alot of the focus seems to be on Uganda where there was a dramatic fall in the infection rate, and many top AIDs scientists say that abstinence was key. But it now seems to be climbing again in Uganda... There is also other countries where condoms are widely available and it continues to rise. I still have nt seen any stats connecting the Catholic's to higher rates of HIV only to the contrary.
An open mind is required on the solutions to Africa and not the arrogant approach that what works in the West should work there also.
FFS get a dictionary. Data should be
analysed for statistical purposes not manipulated. You cannot
make data empirical by manipulating it. Data (definition - facts or statistics collected together for reference or analysis) is empirical always. Good christ.
As for pure maths - pure maths is a branch of maths developed to deal in purely abstract concepts - not concepts such as statistical analysis which rely on traditional and measurable maths such as, you know, basic arithmetic and algebra.
Arithmetic is not a theory - it is a numeric language to describe physical phenomena - as in there's two apples, take away 1, what is left - yes, that's it, 1. that is the very opposite of the hypothetical method of scientific investigation.
And as for the points re AIDS in Africa and chastity - well once you've filtered the results of that google search through the gem that is your mind, unsurprisingly, it seems there is a bias towards the Catholic church point of view. But if you actually do that search and exclude all church backed publications, you'll see the vast majority of impartial sources reject that point of view - with statistics.
You make me tired Joe.
QuoteAll data must be manipulated to make sense of it.
I love it. :D
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2015, 10:03:33 PM
QuoteAll data must be manipulated to make sense of it.
I love it. :D
OK Spock, did not compute! :P
Left out a not on my last post sorry corrected it in bold up there. :D
I also must apologise, becuase I thought that you where actually being coy about manipulate and where aware there was two meanings, its obvious now you arent.
ma·nip·u·late
məˈnipyəˌlāt/Submit
verb
verb: manipulate; 3rd person present: manipulates; past tense: manipulated; past participle: manipulated; gerund or present participle: manipulating
1.
handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.
"he manipulated the dials of the set"
synonyms: operate, work; More
alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer.
examine or treat (a part of the body) by feeling or moving it with the hand.
"a system of healing based on manipulating the ligaments of the spine"
synonyms: massage, rub, knead, feel, palpate
"she manipulated the muscles of his back"
2.
control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.
"the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group"
synonyms: control, influence, use/turn to one's advantage, exploit, maneuver, engineer, steer, direct, gerrymander; twist someone around one's little finger
"the government tried to manipulate the situation"
alter (data) or present (statistics) so as to mislead.
synonyms: falsify, rig, distort, alter, change, doctor, massage, juggle, tamper with, t**ker with, interfere with, misrepresent; More
In this thread I have been talking about the first meaning, so get the other one out of your head, you too Muppet ye plank ::)
And data may be empirical but the results it gives especially if there are many may not be clear, that is why the must be manipulated using mathematics to give a clearer picture
Maths is pure concept, and the equations which it uses that can be applied to solve real life problems are total theory. A problem solved proves the theory but the concept itself is still just that.
Your attempts to demonise me as some sort of Vatican cheerleader are laughable considering I entered into this with the notion that the Catholic church's message was helping to spread AIDs in Africa but have come away with an entirely different point of view. The most glaringly obvious one would be that Catholic countries in sub Saharan Africa have substantially lower infection rates. Is there any similar demographic data about condom availability and AIDs? I have been searching and can't find any, just seems to be a few articles that say that they dont help, or that they should help, but nothing concrete.
I've also seen that 80% figure for condom HIV prevention in another article, nothing in the high 90s. So I dunno where you got your figure from.
I am beginning to think that its actually you who is completely bias in your outlook on this, the constant tirade to insult and demonise also makes me feel uneasy. I have a bit of craic on here with people but its nothing serious apart from in the football forum then its deadly serious, but I feel venom and vitrol on the end of every other sentence with you, do you actually mean to come off like that or am I taking it up the wrong way? And if so why do you feel the need to do it? It might be what is making you tired.
I just checked in to see if this thread could get any more surreal. It can and it has.
Last man standing wins approach too I see. Straight outa the TF playbook, everyone else leaves exasperated & victory is claimed.
Not at all Benny - I'll be getting to joe's latest postcard from the edge later on.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9141163
how about that for effectiveness of condom use in preventing HIV? Is that clear enough for you?
Ok - let's do this quick and clear. First up, no one, and I mean no one, uses the word manipulate in relation to data unless they are talking about skewing the data. If they are not talking about skewing the data, they use the word analyse. You posting up the definition of manipulate does not change the fact that you are using it in a completely inappropriate way for your argument. Quick tip - if you have to post up dictionary definitions of the words you are using to make your point, you're using the wrong words.
And data may be empirical but the results it gives especially if there are many may not be clear, that is why the must be manipulated using mathematics to give a clearer picture
Data is always empirical, it does not in and of itself give results, data is usually analysed in either a qualitative or quantitative way to give a result to a specific question. Statistical analysis (using maths, yes, well done) is one of the quantitative methods.
Maths is pure concept, and the equations which it uses that can be applied to solve real life problems are total theory. A problem solved proves the theory but the concept itself is still just that.
(Deep breath) No, pure maths, which you first brought up, is theoretical and was first developed from basic mathematics to deal with abstract concepts. However, you are mixing up a lot of things - arithmetic, on which statistical calculations are based, is not theoretical, quite the opposite. When you talk about a theory being proved in maths using equations, I can only assume that you mean geometric theorems that we all learnt in school, such as Pythagoras, where basic algebraic equations are used to solve a more complex problem. Either way, none of these equates to the hypothetical method we have been arguing about. You literally do not know what you are talking about.
I am beginning to think that its actually you who is completely bias in your outlook on this, the constant tirade to insult and demonise also makes me feel uneasy. I have a bit of craic on here with people but its nothing serious apart from in the football forum then its deadly serious, but I feel venom and vitrol on the end of every other sentence with you, do you actually mean to come off like that or am I taking it up the wrong way? And if so why do you feel the need to do it? It might be what is making you tired.
I am completely biased - to dogma of all kinds, left or right, atheistic or religious. Someone comes on here, say like TF, and he enjoys playing the role of Catholic supervillain, stroking his white cat and annoying the bollix out of people. I can deal with that, he is just a troll.
Or Stew comes on, barks out a few homophobic insults, and calls someone a cnut. Ok, I vehemently disagree with him, but at least there is no artifice there.
But you Joe, your attack isn't on actual minorities or atheists or lefties etc - your attack is actually on critical thought itself. Your stupidity is either willful or ignorant. If ignorant, well then, I hope you've learnt something.
If it is willful, then like every other waster on the extreme right or extreme left, the one thing that you fear is critical thought and rational examination - because you're clever enough to know that those things demolish your argument. So, despite the fact that you've been told time and time again that your use of language is inaccurate and misleading, that your sources and numbers (at times by your own admission) are biased and wrong, you wander on and call foul that someone has called you on it. Which, by the way, is a typical extremist move, play the victim and make the other person the aggressor.
You may think that the board is simply a place for banter and not taking things too seriously. Grand, then don't take part in serious discussions. Your previous posts indicate that you are either spectacularly ill equipped to do so, or that you are a troll who enjoys taking the conversation down these cul de sacs.
Just as it is your right to not take this place seriously, it is my right to do so and also my right to think that people should stand behind their words, whether uttered in person, or typed in to their keyboard under an alias. Enough people know my real name on this board for me to be honest when I write, whether in fun or in debate, which is what this is. If you don't like the debate then don't engage. If you do engage, which you have, copiously, then don't complain when it doesn't go your way.
To finish...Good Jesus.
Itchy reads 5/6 posts, itchys brain starts to melt, itchy departs. Have fun kids
Quoth Bill Clinton: It depends what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Sorry tiger but manipulate is actually used in regard to data, frequently. In my line of work, it is constantly used about results and data. All you have to do is type in "manipulate data" into the google search bar and the first choice is "in excel", which will give you a whole list of way to do it. Data is not always empirical, if its not collected empirically, and you have to collectively manipulate it to give empirical results. There is nothing more to say on this.
Also sorry but Maths is complete concept, and all mathematic fields are based on concept. Maths only exists in our heads, it can be applied to real life but that doesnt make it real. If you cant wrap it around that, then our math discussion is over. Ask anyone who has a a degree in maths, I am sure they will agree and would be happy to answer your questions on it.
What are you talking about dogma? No one is trying to even bring dogma into this. Just because you are talking about the church doesn't mean everything that the church does is incorrect because of religious dogma. If your fundamentally biased against the church because of their dogma then having a rational discussion about the church is completely pointless.
But to say that you are opposed to dogma makes no sense. If you are opposed to religious dogma that's fine,but the society will live in is based on dogma. Maths for example is dogma, law is dogma, in fact, when I think about it, and this should really get you going, "everything non empirical is based on dogma". Have a think about that with an open mind and you should get an understanding of both the words.
Now lets get back to your original point that is that the Catholic message in Africa is helping to spread AIDS. As I said b4, I must admit I would have thought this as well, but there not appear to any evidence to show that. It should be a simple level of condom distribution and marketing by country v catholic infection rate. The only places on line I can find anything relating to that are the Catholic websites, which point to lower HIV/AIDS rate in catholic countries. Could it be the case that they are correct or is it just they fundamentally wrong because they are biased and based on dogma? If they are wrong it should be easy to prove, but despite a whole squadron of detractors of the Catholic church in this area, no one seems to have done that.
It should be perfectly clear that I am not engaging in banter, and this is a serious discussion. Which is why I am not engaging in insults to try and belittle what you are saying. I am not complaining that the debate is not going my way either, I am complaining about your constant tirade. I am not even sure there is a debate, only trying to establish facts, which you are trying to distract from by claiming that everything I say is rubbish. The very fact that you have the notion that this is a debate is worrying as it would indicate that you have dogmatically* chosen your side and are going about this whole thing to prove your point and attempt to smear and denigrate anything that opposed your position. An open mind is a wonderful thing.
*now thats banter ;)
Data is not always empirical, if its not collected empirically
Yes, epic bantz. Could you describe how data can be collected non-empirically? I'm not even going to bother quoting your understanding of maths. Or mis-understanding of it. They must be very patient math graduates you hang out with.
But to say that you are opposed to dogma makes no sense. If you are opposed to religious dogma that's fine,but the society will live in is based on dogma. Maths for example is dogma, law is dogma, in fact, when I think about it, and this should really get you going, "everything non empirical is based on dogma".
Dogma is a set of principles set down by a higher authority as incontrovertibly true. I certainly wouldn't put myself in any kind of bracket with these examples, but people who would have questioned dogma as incontrovertibly true would include Gallileo, Socrates, Mozart, John Lennon, Macchiavelli, Einstein, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Da Vinci... do I need to go on or have you put down your pitchfork and your flaming torch yet?
And by the way, maths and law are the opposite of dogma as their development and evolution have often come in direct opposition to accepted truth ie the use of applied maths in quantum physics or Magna Carta vs the Divine right of kings.
My original point was that abstinence only education does not prevent HIV spread, and it does not matter to me who propagates this lie. Now here are two pieces of journalism that refer to research done on the subject. The first is from the New York Times this year and details reactions to a study that proved that US government support for abstinence only programmes in Africa had no effect.
The second two links refer to a report in "The Lancet" accusing Pope Bendict of lying about the effectiveness of condoms against the spread of AIDS. These are fairly unimpeachable sources. It took me literally less than 30 seconds to find them. Which makes me think for all your talk about open minds, you've confused "open" and "empty". And I'm not a whole squadron.
Linking to sources from Catholic websites undermines your argument completely, as anyone with any intelligence would realise. Admitting your sources' bias does not excuse your sources' bias.
I am not even sure there is a debate, only trying to establish facts, which you are trying to distract from by claiming that everything I say is rubbish. The very fact that you have the notion that this is a debate is worrying as it would indicate that you have dogmatically* chosen your side and are going about this whole thing to prove your point and attempt to smear and denigrate anything that opposed your position. An open mind is a wonderful thing.
And an empty one is a terrible thing. I don't object to people of faith - what I object to is anti-intellectualism and the distortion of facts, both of which, I think even the most impartial reader, would admit you've been guilty of during the past few pages.
That's not banter, it's just facts. Links below
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/27/pope-aids-hiv-lancet
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/health/american-hiv-battle-in-africa-said-to-falter.html?_r=0
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(09)70185-9/fulltext?_eventId=login
Could someone direct me to the Papal's visit to Ireland thread? I seem to have stumbled into the durex thread
Where do you this from that I am distorting facts? ? Is it regarding manipulategate? (thats got a nice ring to it what?)
Cos if it is I can quite easily give you a break down of that whole sequence of events, but sure its there in Black and White where you scoffed and sneered at every one of my responses until you had nothing left.
Ironically by doing this it is you who is distorting the facts. But it is nothing more than an attempt to play to the gallery as you have shamelessly done in nearly every post. Its not surprising that you need vindication from other posters for your debate as you see this as a contest. Is that why you are posting, Or is it simply to porn scorn on anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, which I am not even fully sure if I have. And BTW highlighting your incessant belittling tirade ain't playing the victim, its pointing out the facts. I could go through and highlight everytime you done it but sure you know yourself.
But the clinker of the lot must be your comments about critical thought, completely unfounded but sure they work well as a smoke screen to your own stubbornness.
Anyway for what its worth Empirical v Stat Evidence I would point to something like smoking causing and cancer. No direct link but alot of overwhelming statistical evidence. Just because there its not empirical evidence does not make the other evidence invalid, so you can down from your high horse now. Hopefully you've learned something.
The use of applied maths in quantum physics is no more relevant than the use of applied maths in baking a cake in terms of the origin of maths, ie both are irrelevant to its roots. I've had this discussion many times with Math graduates. Maths is the epitome of dogma. When you get down into it apparently all maths can be proven with the acceptance of the dogma of a point on a line, everything can be built from that position. But for the everyday user of maths, like you and me, there is no need to go to that depth, you simply accept the dogma of numbers. In fact it would appear that you have accepted it so well, you actually think they are real! :D.
Legal laws maybe not as good of an example as maths as their dogma are generally based on morals which in theory are changeable, but once they change, again the whole deck of cards comes down. A good example is the French republics, they're on their fifth, their ideals changed so therefore they deemed that everything was written by the support of this had to go to. Although what maintained the sovereign state is the dogma of nationalism, which held fast through the whole thing.
I dont even think your in the squadron BTW, do you really think GAA board matters that much? Those chaps opposed you listed opposed specific dogma and proved it wrong, but you oppose all apparently? Anyway to even enter into this discussion with the thought that this is a debate means you have a stubborn set position and are being dogmatic in the extreme, so coupled with your defence of maths it is quite clear that even tho you oppose dogma your clearly adhering to it pretty well.
Your links are interesting however not really relevant to the Catholic rate of AIDS in Africa.
First one is an opinion piece about the previous Pope's seriously suspect comments about condoms, which is not what the discussion is about.. its about Catholic church's message not preventing sexually transmitted diseases in Africa. And I am well sure you know there are more than a few high profile opinions floating around about the Pope and abstinence.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/92702/
Do you ignore what this guy says or have you considered it and dismissed it because it is contrary to what you believe to be true?
2nd one is relevant to the American government and AIDS and shows that their methods ABC dont work any better than anything else.
3rd one might be relevant if I didnt have to bloody well pay to see it... if you have access, post it up or send me an IM (it its copyright afterall, and people know who you are*)
If you refuse to even entertain anything that would support the Catholic Church, even stats that no one else it would appear has opposed, you are completely biased and closed minded. If you can find something specifically those opposes the previous stats about Catholics HIV/AIDS rate, I am open to it.
I have looked at alot of articles on this and there appears to be no clear concise pattern to any of the approaches to tackling AIDS. Condom distribution and marketing has been linked to increased rates but also now thankfully to the decrease in South Africa, although there are other factors to, such as new drugs that prevent the disease crossing the placenta, which may contributed to this. Uganda's success was linked to abstinence, although it has unfortunately risen in recent years, but nowhere near SA's level. I believe that education is still key. If people fully understand what is going on they will take the best preventive steps for themselves.
Sounds like you're objecting to easytiger highlighting & then dismantling your 'arguments' one by one. Wild unfair alrite.
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2015, 06:28:25 AM
Where do you this from that I am distorting facts? ? Is it regarding manipulategate? (thats got a nice ring to it what?)
Cos if it is I can quite easily give you a break down of that whole sequence of events, but sure its there in Black and White where you scoffed and sneered at every one of my responses until you had nothing left.
Ironically by doing this it is you who is distorting the facts. But it is nothing more than an attempt to play to the gallery as you have shamelessly done in nearly every post. Its not surprising that you need vindication from other posters for your debate as you see this as a contest. Is that why you are posting, Or is it simply to porn scorn on anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, which I am not even fully sure if I have. And BTW highlighting your incessant belittling tirade ain't playing the victim, its pointing out the facts. I could go through and highlight everytime you done it but sure you know yourself.
But the clinker of the lot must be your comments about critical thought, completely unfounded but sure they work well as a smoke screen to your own stubbornness.
Anyway for what its worth Empirical v Stat Evidence I would point to something like smoking causing and cancer. No direct link but alot of overwhelming statistical evidence. Just because there its not empirical evidence does not make the other evidence invalid, so you can down from your high horse now. Hopefully you've learned something.
The use of applied maths in quantum physics is no more relevant than the use of applied maths in baking a cake in terms of the origin of maths, ie both are irrelevant to its roots. I've had this discussion many times with Math graduates. Maths is the epitome of dogma. When you get down into it apparently all maths can be proven with the acceptance of the dogma of a point on a line, everything can be built from that position. But for the everyday user of maths, like you and me, there is no need to go to that depth, you simply accept the dogma of numbers. In fact it would appear that you have accepted it so well, you actually think they are real! :D.
Legal laws maybe not as good of an example as maths as their dogma are generally based on morals which in theory are changeable, but once they change, again the whole deck of cards comes down. A good example is the French republics, they're on their fifth, their ideals changed so therefore they deemed that everything was written by the support of this had to go to. Although what maintained the sovereign state is the dogma of nationalism, which held fast through the whole thing.
I dont even think your in the squadron BTW, do you really think GAA board matters that much? Those chaps opposed you listed opposed specific dogma and proved it wrong, but you oppose all apparently? Anyway to even enter into this discussion with the thought that this is a debate means you have a stubborn set position and are being dogmatic in the extreme, so coupled with your defence of maths it is quite clear that even tho you oppose dogma your clearly adhering to it pretty well.
Your links are interesting however not really relevant to the Catholic rate of AIDS in Africa.
First one is an opinion piece about the previous Pope's seriously suspect comments about condoms, which is not what the discussion is about.. its about Catholic church's message not preventing sexually transmitted diseases in Africa. And I am well sure you know there are more than a few high profile opinions floating around about the Pope and abstinence.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/92702/
Do you ignore what this guy says or have you considered it and dismissed it because it is contrary to what you believe to be true?
2nd one is relevant to the American government and AIDS and shows that their methods ABC dont work any better than anything else.
3rd one might be relevant if I didnt have to bloody well pay to see it... if you have access, post it up or send me an IM (it its copyright afterall, and people know who you are*)
If you refuse to even entertain anything that would support the Catholic Church, even stats that no one else it would appear has opposed, you are completely biased and closed minded. If you can find something specifically those opposes the previous stats about Catholics HIV/AIDS rate, I am open to it.
I have looked at alot of articles on this and there appears to be no clear concise pattern to any of the approaches to tackling AIDS. Condom distribution and marketing has been linked to increased rates but also now thankfully to the decrease in South Africa, although there are other factors to, such as new drugs that prevent the disease crossing the placenta, which may contributed to this. Uganda's success was linked to abstinence, although it has unfortunately risen in recent years, but nowhere near SA's level. I believe that education is still key. If people fully understand what is going on they will take the best preventive steps for themselves.
Just noticed this response now, and I;'m not even going to bother to go through the all the bad grammar, flawed thought processes etc but I will highlight one point above - I never posted about Empirical evidence v Stat evidence - statistical evidence is empirical evidence, because statistics are gathered through a process of observation (i.e. at the most basic level counting). So in your example of lung cancer, those that are suffering are asked if they smoked - the numbers of those who reply yes are counted and then that statistic is analysed as to whether it is relevant to whether there is a connection between smoking and lung cancer. All levels of that process (despite the lack of direct medical evidence at the time) is conducted by observation and as I posted a week ago
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. I hope you've learnt something, but judging by the way you continually refuse to accept this point and your befuddled musings in the rest of your post, I doubt it. Where's my high horse again?
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2015, 06:28:25 AM
Or is it simply to porn scorn on anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, which I am not even fully sure if I have.
I did chuckle at this ... Sorry Omaghjoe!
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 08, 2015, 08:17:41 PM
Just noticed this response now, and I;'m not even going to bother to go through the all the bad grammar, flawed thought processes etc but I will highlight one point above - I never posted about Empirical evidence v Stat evidence - statistical evidence is empirical evidence, because statistics are gathered through a process of observation (i.e. at the most basic level counting). So in your example of lung cancer, those that are suffering are asked if they smoked - the numbers of those who reply yes are counted and then that statistic is analysed as to whether it is relevant to whether there is a connection between smoking and lung cancer. All levels of that process (despite the lack of direct medical evidence at the time) is conducted by observation and as I posted a week ago Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. I hope you've learnt something, but judging by the way you continually refuse to accept this point and your befuddled musings in the rest of your post, I doubt it. Where's my high horse again?
:D Your right about one thing Tiger my grammar is shockin, so you will have to forgive me for that and try to bear with me, it also might be hindering my explanations, so I apologise for that. But I would be interested to know what was flawed in my thought process, but I suspect you are taking my leave from my musings.
I think we have finally come to the crux of the issue and now see why there is confusion. The data collected is empirical as you say, but it is not empirical evidence to what the study is discussing through the stats. So first lets take the "Smoking causes cancer" scenario which you expanded upon.
The empirical evidence is only that a patient has cancer, and that a patient smokes. The number of these people that have cancer and used to smoke is the statistical evidence used to make a link between smoking and cancer. However there is no actual empirical evidence that smoking causes cancer. Do you get what I am saying? (Please say no, or inquire if unclear, I dont want to continue pointless mud slinging)
Similarly your studies are only empirical evidence that someone had a certain type of sex education and whether they adhered to the advice it gave or not. The statistical evidence would try and draw links between the two. Now although these studies, the second one in particular appeared to have a very good methodology etc by taking alot of factors into account, rely on human choice and resultant action. So they could only be said to be truely empirical evidence for the group studied. It could not be used as empirical evidence that the result will be repeated on another group, we have only statistics to indicate that it would.
Whats more, you used it to support the following statement.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.
The most glaring problem with backing up that statement with those studies, is that they are irrelevant to Catholic teaching as they did not explicitly study Catholics in Africa or the West. You could use these studies to theorise that Catholic teaching is similar to what these studies were examining, and therefore there is a good chance they will be repeated. However you said that "Empirical Evidence... points to the fact that...". To me that's completely explicit, if its not fine, let me know.
There is also other statistical evidence that opposes what you said, and there would appear to be nothing to back up the above statement regarding AIDS and Africa's Catholics (which is what is under discussion), not statistically and certainly not empirically.
Also I would like to add that I am not trying to disagree with your statement to insult you, I am trying to be objective, it aint personal. I would have thought the premise of what you are saying to be likely, but it appears not to be, it also could change to be true in the future but for the present it aint.
Quote from: Rois on October 08, 2015, 09:02:25 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on October 07, 2015, 06:28:25 AM
Or is it simply to porn scorn on anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, which I am not even fully sure if I have.
I did chuckle at this ... Sorry Omaghjoe!
Go to f**k Rois
;D ;D ;D
You musta heard of manipulating Data Rois wha?
What about the Maths? I am sure you got into all that dot and line crap?
Sorry Joe - but you are truly making a show of yourself. You don't understand what the word empirical means, you've changed over and over again what you're arguing about - remember when you said that data wasn't empirical??!!
Now you come up with
The data collected is empirical as you say, but it is not empirical evidence to what the study is discussing through the stats. So first lets take the "Smoking causes cancer" scenario which you expanded upon.
The empirical evidence is only that a patient has cancer, and that a patient smokes. The number of these people that have cancer and used to smoke is the statistical evidence used to make a link between smoking and cancer. However there is no actual empirical evidence that smoking causes cancer. Do you get what I am saying? (Please say no, or inquire if unclear, I dont want to continue pointless mud slinging)
Now this is the last time I'm going to say this - the word "empirical" relates to how data is gathered and analysed - so if is gathered by observation and measurement it is empirical. You are confusing the word "empirical" with "definitive" - so if, out of 100 lung cancer patients, 60 of them are smokers, may not be "definitive" evidence that there is a causal link. it is still empirical because you acquired the data through empirical means - ie observing the patients and measuring the amount of smoker - any further statistical analysis is also empirical because you are working with data that was gathered empirically and you are also using statistics which are a quantitative method of analysis.
Any studies I posted are empirical because they are all based on the scientific method of research. Your analysis of the studies I posted is truly scary in its lack of understanding of basic methodology. You're coming across like a moron, and that is not mud slinging, it is just a statement of fact - an empirical observation, if you like.
Now, I truly don't think you are a moron, but you'd want to think about how you've spent a week completely misunderstanding basic phrases and concepts.
Also just to clarify your post below
Whats more, you used it to support the following statement.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.
The most glaring problem with backing up that statement with those studies, is that they are irrelevant to Catholic teaching as they did not explicitly study Catholics in Africa or the West. You could use these studies to theorise that Catholic teaching is similar to what these studies were examining, and therefore there is a good chance they will be repeated. However you said that "Empirical Evidence... points to the fact that...". To me that's completely explicit, if its not fine, let me know.
My original post quoted was in response to Iceman who posited that Church teaching on chastity could help mitigate the rate AIDS infection in Afrcia - my response clearly states that Catholic teaching on chastity (i.e abstinence, which is also the official policy of US aid agencies and other) does not work in preventing teen pregnancy and STDs either in Africa or the rest of the world. I did not limit it to African Catholics as a demographic group and the studies i have posted reflect this. One of the most pernicious effects that abstinence education has is that it influences government policy, which is them applied to citizens regardless of religion. You are dancing on the head of a pin here and it is kind of pathetic that i have to clarify that I;m talking about abstinence policy because you couldn't read back two posts on the thread from my original statement.
But please, spend a day coming up with another essay on the difference between statistics and empirical evidence. I like to start my day with a laugh.
yawn...
back to the pope... if the catholic church/rome/the pope, gave a shite about catholics in Ireland, then the pope would have been here years ago. Catholicism is dying out in this country big time. is everyone supposed to flock to see this pope when he arrives and bow down to him?! i for one, wont be and couldn't care less if he never came.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 09, 2015, 09:19:46 AM
Now this is the last time I'm going to say this - the word "empirical" relates to how data is gathered and analysed - so if is gathered by observation and measurement it is empirical. You are confusing the word "empirical" with "definitive" - so if, out of 100 lung cancer patients, 60 of them are smokers, may not be "definitive" evidence that there is a causal link. it is still empirical because you acquired the data through empirical means - ie observing the patients and measuring the amount of smoker - any further statistical analysis is also empirical because you are working with data that was gathered empirically and you are also using statistics which are a quantitative method of analysis.
Any studies I posted are empirical because they are all based on the scientific method of research. Your analysis of the studies I posted is truly scary in its lack of understanding of basic methodology. You're coming across like a moron, and that is not mud slinging, it is just a statement of fact - an empirical observation, if you like.
Now, I truly don't think you are a moron, but you'd want to think about how you've spent a week completely misunderstanding basic phrases and concepts.
Well I suppose I will ignore your insults if you can ignore my grammar. Although I do not make a conscious effort to have bad grammar, its a natural flair I have ;). Im glad your getting a laugh out of it though, cos on this end your tirade has become so repetitive and farcical it is bordering on the Pasileyesque at this point, but evidently nowhere near as effective.
Firstly your right, that statement I made about Data is technically incorrect, although I was clear in what I meant, just didn't come out right.
So lets rephrase it, "Data is not necessarily empirical evidence." It is not empirical evidence if its unrelated to what is being attempted to be proved. In the case of smoking and cancer it is circumstantial evidence, the quantities involved are statistical evidence but as yet there is no complete empirical evidence.
That's about as clear as I can be on that I think.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 09, 2015, 09:36:30 AM
Also just to clarify your post below
Whats more, you used it to support the following statement.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 02, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
All empirical evidence in both the Western world and Africa points to the fact that not only does Catholic teaching on chastity outside marriage not work to prevent sex outside marriage but also boosts rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.
My original post quoted was in response to Iceman who posited that Church teaching on chastity could help mitigate the rate AIDS infection in Afrcia - my response clearly states that Catholic teaching on chastity (i.e abstinence, which is also the official policy of US aid agencies and other) does not work in preventing teen pregnancy and STDs either in Africa or the rest of the world. I did not limit it to African Catholics as a demographic group and the studies i have posted reflect this. One of the most pernicious effects that abstinence education has is that it influences government policy, which is them applied to citizens regardless of religion. You are dancing on the head of a pin here and it is kind of pathetic that i have to clarify that I;m talking about abstinence policy because you couldn't read back two posts on the thread from my original statement.
But please, spend a day coming up with another essay on the difference between statistics and empirical evidence. I like to start my day with a laugh.
The original post in question was actually by haveaharp who implied that church teachings on contraception failed millions in Africa. In support of this statement by haveaharp you expanded it to your above quote, which included STDs, teen pregnancy, etc in both the West and Africa but was quite specific about Catholic teaching.
In support of this you posted studies on abstinence education, now I can see the link between this and Catholic teaching but to come to a conclusion as unequivocal and as encompassing as yours, you would need much more specific studies about Catholics. And perhaps more crucially, for it to move out of the realm of likelihood/opinion/chance and become fact there would surely be no evidence to directly contradict it, such as the demographical stats.
So lets rephrase it, "Data is not necessarily empirical evidence." It is not empirical evidence if its unrelated to what is being attempted to be proved. In the case of smoking and cancer it is circumstantial evidence, the quantities involved are statistical evidence but as yet there is no complete empirical evidence.
Ok, if that is as clear as you can be, then you are a moron. Sorry, but it is true. Data is always empirical because it is gathered by observation or measurement. The word empirical has no relation to the words "circumstantial" or "definitive" - empirical describes a method of gathering evidence, whereas circumstantial or definitive describe the conclusions drawn from that evidence and it's relationship to the subject being researched.
he original post in question was actually by haveaharp who implied that church teachings on contraception failed millions in Africa. In support of this statement by haveaharp you expanded it to your above quote, which included STDs, teen pregnancy, etc in both the West and Africa but was quite specific about Catholic teaching.
In support of this you posted studies on abstinence education, now I can see the link between this and Catholic teaching but to come to a conclusion as unequivocal and as encompassing as yours, you would need much more specific studies about Catholics. And perhaps more crucially, for it to move out of the realm of likelihood/opinion/chance and become fact there would surely be no evidence to directly contradict it, such as the demographical stats.
The post I responded to was by Iceman, who queried whether Church teaching could help stop the spread of AIDS. I responded that Church teaching ie abstinence has been proved not to be effective, wherever it has been used. Now, I know for someone of your limited capacity this may be hard to understand, but the Catholic Church is not the only institution that proposes abstinence as a policy, nor did i propose to specifically study the effects of abstinence in Catholics only in Africa. Also, there are more religions than Catholics in Africa. So no, I don't need to come up with specific studies for Catholics to cover what was a general statement, a statement borne out by the links that I posted.
What next for tomorrow Joe? Do we have to start breaking down the alphabet for you? Or do we whip out our multiplication tables?
If I were you i'd put my head down on the desk and have some quiet time...
BTW Pasileyesque!!! ;D
C'mon, admit, Omaghjoe is just a parody account, very good though
Sorry tiger, busy ole weekend, I hope your mornings have not been 2 glum without me. :)
I get what your saying tiger and it makes logical sense. However I would have thought that in the scientific world if your testing a hypothesis, you would test it directly and therefore any resulting empirical evidence would be direct evidence rather than circumstantial. Therefore empirical evidence would always be definitive. My understanding (could be wrong) is that empirical evidence in the scientific setting at least is total definitive evidence (unless other empirical evidence contradicts it), that's if science even operates in such absolute terms. I would have thought that empirical data that is circumstantial evidence could not be deemed empirical evidence because you have to use thought or reason to reach those conclusions, therefore it could only be empirical in isolation (ie data).
You could well be right tho, that the term empirical includes all types of evidence no matter how remotely related it is. To me my understanding seems the more reasonable of the two tho but I am biased of course, and I must admit I am bit hesitant to take your word for it , considering you see this whole discussion as a contest.
But I suspect that you where thinking along the same lines as myself when you tied the term "empirical evidence" with the term "fact." On the other hand if we use your ambiguous definition of empirical evidence (in terms of degree of proof) it would not be adequate to use it to establish a "fact".
Anyway more specifically about your statement, you were using absolute terms, therefore the context is actually irrelevant, if you wanted to contradict Iceman you should have been more specific. It would appear that are you isolating one aspect of Catholic teaching, deeming it be ineffective in isolation and then using that as evidence to deem all Catholic teaching as ineffective. What's more it was classified as a fact, when there is also evidence that directly contradicts it, so its actually not fact. Also since this is a study of human behaviour it could never be a fact as the behaviour could change, so it could never actually be deemed a fact, that goes for both sides of the coin BTW.
My understanding (could be wrong) is that empirical evidence in the scientific setting at least is total definitive evidence (unless other empirical evidence contradicts it), that's if science even operates in such absolute terms.
Your understanding is wrong.
I would have thought that empirical data that is circumstantial evidence could not be deemed empirical evidence because you have to use thought or reason to reach those conclusions, therefore it could only be empirical in isolation (ie data).
Conclusions are conclusions - you can reach them through an evidence based, empirical process, or a hypothetical, rationalism based process - they are the two basic methods. Whether evidence is circumstantial is irrelevant to the method used. Data is data and it's gathering and use is the basis of the empirical method.
But I suspect that you where thinking along the same lines as myself when you tied the term "empirical evidence" with the term "fact." On the other hand if we use your ambiguous definition of empirical evidence (in terms of degree of proof) it would not be adequate to use it to establish a "fact".
I could never think along the same lines as yourself, as you do not seem to have any logical process to your thoughts. Data are "facts" - so when I said that empirical evidence proved my point, I was saying that evidence gathered by the scientific, fact based, data based, method proved it. Now, in any other example, you could gather empirical evidence that would disprove a given point. That is the point of the scientific method - you let the facts determine the outcome, unlike positing a hypothesis and proving it through rationalism. If facts don't prove a point, that does not make their gathering or assessment any less empirical.
Anyway more specifically about your statement, you were using absolute terms, therefore the context is actually irrelevant, if you wanted to contradict Iceman you should have been more specific. It would appear that are you isolating one aspect of Catholic teaching, deeming it be ineffective in isolation and then using that as evidence to deem all Catholic teaching as ineffective. What's more it was classified as a fact, when there is also evidence that directly contradicts it, so its actually not fact. Also since this is a study of human behaviour it could never be a fact as the behaviour could change, so it could never actually be deemed a fact, that goes for both sides of the coin BTW.
I don't think I'll be taking any advice from you on how to argue a point - given your posts, your consistent inability (by your own admission) to define or understand the terms involved, the misunderstanding is on your side. What is ineffective is the Catholic Church's teaching on abstinence, just as it is ineffective when practiced by NGOs, the US State Department or other religions. I didn't say that all the Church's teachings are ineffective - once again, you inferred that without any evidence - for instance, I think the Pope's teachings on global warming to be a big step forward for the world. But like most blinkered people, you see only what you want to see. The evidence you posted and say directly contradicts my point, comes from a completely biased viewpoint, that of Church backed studies. Anything I posted is empirical, peer reviewed and credible - which is the whole point of this argument. So it is a fact that abstinence is ineffective in prevent the spread of HIV and teenage pregnancies.
lso since this is a study of human behaviour it could never be a fact as the behaviour could change, so it could never actually be deemed a fact, that goes for both sides of the coin BTW.
Jesus, if you had brains you'd be dangerous...
The facts are that humans were measured behaving in one way. If they change their behaviour afterwards, it doesn't change the facts of what went before. That is like saying the Nazis didn't exist because there are no death camps in German now.
You've admitted above you've got it wrong. You should just leave it at that, instead of embarrassing yourself.
Firstly circumstantial evidence does not relate to the conclusion one arrives at, its a type of evidence, a type of evidence that requires reasoning to connect it to a proposition.
So lets put all the cards on the table so far.....
Your thought is that if that data is empirical and is used as evidence, whether related directly or circumstantially, it always equates to be empirical evidence? Correct?
My understanding is that to be "empirical evidence" it would also have to be directly related to what is being proved, and is completely direct and definitive
The key word here is evidence, if we have data that is being used to corroborate a statement or theory then it becomes evidence. When you also apply the word empirical as an adjective to the word evidence it means that the evidence would be empirical and not just the method for collecting it.
So I feel that your definition is not correct. As I stated before if evidence is circumstantial it requires furthering theorising to connect it to the subject, therefore could not be empirical. Nothing you have proposed so far would sway me towards your definition, not least the fact that it opens up the possibility to serious ambiguity of the term empirical evidence, which I don't believe it is.
But I guess you are thinking SNAP! So unless you have anything of substance to add, I think that we should call it a day on this, as we evidently have different understandings of the term.
Are you deeming evidence presented from a bias source to be always incorrect? If so, I sure wouldn't like to be a defendant with you a juror? Catholic country's have lower HIV/AIDs rates in Africa, I am sure you can find it on Wikipedia if you want to trawl through it. Its circumstantial evidence I admit, not empirical (my definition)
Not sure what the Nazis and Climate Change have to do with anything or how they address my points. Your analogy about the Nazis in particularly is perplexing but your conviction is impressive.
I was talking about church teachings being effective on spreading HIV/AIDS. For example the Catholic church's teachings on Abstinence/Chasity/Monogamy (ACM) is based on the foundation of faith. This method would likely differ significantly from other religions and organisations that teach ACM. So therefore to make a statement about Catholic teaching being ineffective, a study on these areas exclusively for Catholics would be required for it to even begin to have any relevance.
Anyway whether you take my advice or not your original statement is incorrect. Dogmatically sticking to it will not change this.
Your thought is that if that data is empirical and is used as evidence, whether related directly or circumstantially, it always equates to be empirical evidence? Correct?
My understanding is that to be "empirical evidence" it would also have to be directly related to what is being proved, and is completely direct and definitive
Even after me explaining this time and time again, and even with you cleaning up your grammar, you still don't get this. Data is empirical if it is gathered using the empirical method - through observation and/or measurement. Whether it is used as evidence for a proof is immaterial. It is the method with which it is gathered.
he key word here is evidence, if we have data that is being used to corroborate a statement or theory then it becomes evidence. When you also apply the word empirical as an adjective to the word evidence it means that the evidence would be empirical and not just the method for collecting it.
I applied the word empirical to the evidence that I referred to let people know it had been gathered in a scientific manner - because in this debate, especially from the religious side, they tend to argue from rationalism "Abstinence is a Catholic religious teaching, Catholics obey all religious teaching, therefore Catholics obey teaching on abstinence, therefore abstinence is an effective tool in reducing HIV spread."
That makes sense until you gather data empirically which shows that it is not true ie the pieces that I linked to.
Empirical evidence can be used for anything. If for instance, i was to make the point that condom sales were going up because I had empirical evidence that the rate of HIV was falling, that would be using that evidence in a circumstantial way. If however, I looked at my empirical evidence that the rate of HIV as falling, and then I went and measured condom sales across the group, then i would have my definitive evidence.
And all this, Joe is unfortunately self evident to anyone with any sense.
As I stated before if evidence is circumstantial it requires furthering theorising to connect it to the subject, therefore could not be empirical.
No Joe, what you stated before was that data could not be empirical. You now think that by calling it evidence you can get away with the stupidity of the previous statement. You are also employing a cheap rhetorical trick by trying to apply the rules of legal proof to the world of scientific research to try and muddy the waters.
But I guess you are thinking SNAP! So unless you have anything of substance to add, I think that we should call it a day on this, as we evidently have different understandings of the term.
I have never thought SNAP! in my life, as I am not a character in an American sitcom. We don't have different understandings. I understand the term and you don't.
Are you deeming evidence presented from a bias source to be always incorrect? If so, I sure wouldn't like to be a defendant with you a juror? Catholic country's have lower HIV/AIDs rates in Africa, I am sure you can find it on Wikipedia if you want to trawl through it. Its circumstantial evidence I admit, not empirical (my definition)
Once again you are confusing the legal system with science. In a western legal system, the standard of evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, and judgements are based on probability. In scientific research, because it is dealing with data empirically gathered, the standard is at once simpler and higher. You must back up your assertions with peer reviewed data and analysis.
So if I'm a regular Church goer and I'm on trial for my life, I definitely want my parish priest to speak up for me, as my behaviour with him speaks to the probability that i have a moral code that would prohibit me committing a heinous crime. But if I am a researcher trying to get to the bottom of HIV rates in Catholic countries, I do not go to the church for their figures - why? Because there is an observable phenomenon called confirmation bias, where people with strong pre-existing beliefs let that belief skew how they look at evidence, unconsciously favouring only the datea that might confirm that belief.
Which is where you are getting all your evidence - which reveals not only the weakness of your argument, but your own bias in the matter.
Not sure what the Nazis and Climate Change have to do with anything or how they address my points. Your analogy about the Nazis in particularly is perplexing but your conviction is impressive
Nice sidestep. My analogy about the Nazis was in response to this point
so since this is a study of human behaviour it could never be a fact as the behaviour could change, so it could never actually be deemed a fact, that goes for both sides of the coin BTW.
which remains, to my mind, one of the most stupid f$%king things I've ever read on this board. So if you'd like to try and explain it, feel free, rather than evading it, as you are still attempting to do.
For example the Catholic church's teachings on Abstinence/Chasity/Monogamy (ACM) is based on the foundation of faith. This method would likely differ significantly from other religions and organisations that teach ACM. So therefore to make a statement about Catholic teaching being ineffective, a study on these areas exclusively for Catholics would be required for it to even begin to have any relevance.
Most abstinence programmes have a background in faith - for instance the US government's abstinence policy was formed during the Bush admin's years and were heavily influenced by Evangelical Protestant Christian teaching. The same with many NGOs who are backed by Christian organisations - the argument is always from faith. Abstinence has been shown to be a failure - but is your argument now that Catholics have a stronger faith, so it is more likely to be effective for Catholics specifically? That is an argument you must prove - with some significant, empirically gathered evidence - which means no confirmation bias, so no Church sources.
Anyway whether you take my advice or not your original statement is incorrect. Dogmatically sticking to it will not change this.
I think i have proved fairly conclusively that my original statement was not incorrect, and your original objection to it, where you argued about the definition of empirical evidence, to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the term. The only dogma spouted on this thread has come from you, where you blindly accepted Church backed sources as evidence of your argument. (Remember the definition of dogma - a set of principles laid down by a higher authority as incontrovertibly true - which is the very opposite of informed, scientific enquiry)
At the end of the day Joe, as seen above, you don't even know what a fact is. Declaring a win and walking off the pitch is straight from the Tony Fearon handbook. Well done and facts be damned.
Easytiger, you've the patience of a saint, I admire your refusal to let him 'fillibuster' the debate.
Quote from: finbar o tool on October 09, 2015, 09:46:17 AM
yawn...
back to the pope... if the catholic church/rome/the pope, gave a shite about catholics in Ireland, then the pope would have been here years ago. Catholicism is dying out in this country big time. is everyone supposed to flock to see this pope when he arrives and bow down to him?! i for one, wont be and couldn't care less if he never came.
This man wants nobody bowing or scraping to him, you must know this having seen the way he has behaved since he became Pope.
I never bothered me arse going to see JP when he came, if I was in Ireland I would go to see this lad.
Would the Pope take a drink? You never see the Pope wrote off getting out of the back of a taxi like the modern celebs do.
Rhetorical Tricks...most stupid things you've read (how many is it now?).... Tony Fearon...blah blah.... wud u ever catch urself on
Tiger this is a pointless escapade, it has become an maelstrom a long time ago. Your unwillingness to even entertain the idea that one thing I said is correct (Manipulategate is the perfect example FFS ::) ) and my gullibility in believing you would engage without pride, have been the perfect fuel to keep this going. But I have neither the time or the interest to do so.
I am not claiming any sort of victory but you can if you want, I have already stated before that I seen this as a discussion and not a debate.
Your unwillingness to even entertain the idea that one thing I said is correct (Manipulategate is the perfect example FFS ::)
If you said anything correct, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately you didn't.
Just read the "Vegetarian" thread - you pulled the same shit over there. Judgemental, condescending and prejudiced and whenever you got called on it "Oh, I was just asking questions, I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it."
Same thing on the gay marriage thread - very boring MO Joe - you should try a new approach.
Quote from: easytiger95 on October 16, 2015, 06:29:51 PM
Your unwillingness to even entertain the idea that one thing I said is correct (Manipulategate is the perfect example FFS ::)
If you said anything correct, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately you didn't.
Just read the "Vegetarian" thread - you pulled the same shit over there. Judgemental, condescending and prejudiced and whenever you got called on it "Oh, I was just asking questions, I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it."
Same thing on the gay marriage thread - very boring MO Joe - you should try a new approach.
You shoulda read some of the stuff i wrote about the Tiernan McCann lynch mob back in the summer, you'd have a total fit.
Tiger, you gotta rememeber this is an anon forum, it is not personal, taking something personal that some faceless nothing writes is as pointless as making personal insults to that same faceless nothing.
If Jesus was real, why would he make badgers only to be mown down on the road. What kind of a sick mind is that?
Quote from: Olly on October 18, 2015, 08:21:12 AM
If Jesus was real, why would he make badgers only to be mown down on the road. What kind of a sick mind is that?
Hey now. He didn't know that after all these years we'd be wearing glasses, but look how perfectly he positioned our noses and ears.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2015, 08:24:43 AM
Quote from: Olly on October 18, 2015, 08:21:12 AM
If Jesus was real, why would he make badgers only to be mown down on the road. What kind of a sick mind is that?
Hey now. He didn't know that after all these years we'd be wearing glasses, but look how perfectly he positioned our noses and ears.
How do you know He didn't know?
Quote from: armaghniac on October 18, 2015, 08:40:11 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 18, 2015, 08:24:43 AM
Quote from: Olly on October 18, 2015, 08:21:12 AM
If Jesus was real, why would he make badgers only to be mown down on the road. What kind of a sick mind is that?
Hey now. He didn't know that after all these years we'd be wearing glasses, but look how perfectly he positioned our noses and ears.
How do you know He didn't know?
Its in the really old Testament.
Good point. If it's been around for 2000 odd years, why's it called the "New" Testament? What's up with that, Tony? Why the false advertising? Can you answer that ? Hmm? Well? Can you?
Pope Francis says it's better to be an atheist than a 'hypocritical Catholic'
The pontiff said it is not good enough to merely go to Mass.
POPE FRANCIS HAS said that it is better to live your life as an atheist rather than be a Catholic who doesn't subscribe to the values of the religion.
The pontiff said it is not good enough to merely go to Mass and said it would be better to be a non-believer rather than someone who says they have faith but who practices otherwise.
According to a Vatican Radio transcript, he said: "There are those who say 'I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this and that association'."
He said that some of these people should also say "'my life is not Christian, I don't pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, I lead a double life'.
There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal. How many times have we all heard people say 'if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist'.
Pope Francis is no stranger to liberal thinking such as this. Last year, he said that Christians and the Roman Catholic Church should apologise to gay people and seek their forgiveness for the way they have been treated.
Speaking to reporters after he flew back to Rome from Armenia, the pope was asked if he agreed with comments by German Cardinal Reinhard Marx that the Church needed to say sorry for the way it has treated the gay community.
"We Christians have to apologise for so many things, not just for this (treatment of gay people), but we must ask for forgiveness," he said.
The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?" the pope added, repeating his famous "Who am I to judge?" remark about homosexuality made early in his papacy.
Quote
"... who are we to judge?" the pope added, repeating his famous "Who am I to judge?" remark about homosexuality made early in his papacy.
Well exactly. That's Tony Fearon's job.
Quote from: Declan on February 24, 2017, 07:36:35 AM
Pope Francis says it's better to be an atheist than a 'hypocritical Catholic'
The pontiff said it is not good enough to merely go to Mass.
POPE FRANCIS HAS said that it is better to live your life as an atheist rather than be a Catholic who doesn't subscribe to the values of the religion.
The pontiff said it is not good enough to merely go to Mass and said it would be better to be a non-believer rather than someone who says they have faith but who practices otherwise.
According to a Vatican Radio transcript, he said: "There are those who say 'I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this and that association'."
He said that some of these people should also say "'my life is not Christian, I don't pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, I lead a double life'.
There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal. How many times have we all heard people say 'if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist'.
Pope Francis is no stranger to liberal thinking such as this. Last year, he said that Christians and the Roman Catholic Church should apologise to gay people and seek their forgiveness for the way they have been treated.
Speaking to reporters after he flew back to Rome from Armenia, the pope was asked if he agreed with comments by German Cardinal Reinhard Marx that the Church needed to say sorry for the way it has treated the gay community.
"We Christians have to apologise for so many things, not just for this (treatment of gay people), but we must ask for forgiveness," he said.
The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?" the pope added, repeating his famous "Who am I to judge?" remark about homosexuality made early in his papacy.
some more context.... and a bit of research Declano
https://churchpop.com/2017/02/23/no-pope-francis-did-not-say-its-better-to-be-an-atheist-than-a-bad-catholic/ (https://churchpop.com/2017/02/23/no-pope-francis-did-not-say-its-better-to-be-an-atheist-than-a-bad-catholic/)
Although in fairness if you read revelations 3: 16 it talks about luke warmness. It's better to be either hot or cold. Because if you are lukewarm you will be vomited out...so maybe there's something there but it isn't what the Pope said...
Tomorrow morning he arrives, I'm not religious myself and won't be going to Croke Park,Phoenix park or Knock to see him but with all the crazy money spent to get him here and plan this event it should be mildly interesting to see how it all goes down as Ireland as we all know is very different place from the last Papal visit.
Hopefully it will be quite different. In 1979 the traffic on the road between Newry and Dundalk was walking speed at about 6:30 in the morning. We are driving from Newry down to the airport for a flight to New York on Sunday morning. I don't want to have to leave in the middle of the night to make it.
Quare changed times the Pope travelling in the road in the back of a Skoda, windows down elbow on the sill.
He isn't going to NI but presumably that is because of the infidels rather than the faithful.
Today's New York Times has an article about a village in Donegal where 8 people were abused committed suicide. A lot of issues have come to the fore since 1979.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/world/europe/francis-ireland-sexual-abuse-catholic-church.html
Did not look very comfortable with our Gay Taoiseach!
Quote from: From the Bunker on August 25, 2018, 01:09:34 PM
Did not look very comfortable with our Gay Taoiseach!
He doesn't look comfortable with any walking or climbing steps either. Sciatica sufferer apparently.
Quote from: From the Bunker on August 25, 2018, 01:09:34 PM
Did not look very comfortable with our Gay Taoiseach!
Previous Popes have met Taoisaigh who were fornicators, but they didn't usually boast about it.
Poor turnout on the streets of Dublin. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin looked very depressed behind Pope Francis.
(https://scontent.fdub5-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39975689_2236819219870867_5904886978897248256_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&oh=3e41b860e647674e2168950c0077239a&oe=5BF88C96)
Quote from: Captain Obvious on August 25, 2018, 05:22:54 PM
(https://scontent.fdub5-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39975689_2236819219870867_5904886978897248256_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&oh=3e41b860e647674e2168950c0077239a&oe=5BF88C96)
Very good😂😂
Callan tore the church a new hole there. Wonderful.
Pope Frank won't commit to anything cos his organisation has sheltered rapists all over the world. The name of the game is power. Religious orgs whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi or Sikh are riddled with abusers.
Quote from: Cunny Funt on August 25, 2018, 03:56:13 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on August 25, 2018, 01:09:34 PM
Did not look very comfortable with our Gay Taoiseach!
He doesn't look comfortable with any walking or climbing steps either. Sciatica sufferer apparently.
Had part of his lung removed as a child too, supposedly left him with a disturbance to his balance.
Those are not the fûcking Deftones.
I'd have paid money to see the Deftones performing at this yoke.
Quote from: Syferus on August 25, 2018, 07:08:27 PM
Those are not the fûcking Deftones.
I'd have paid money to see the Deftones performing at this yoke.
They are.
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2018/0217/941448-deaftones-choir-captures-hearts-on-irelands-got-talent/
Quote from: trileacman on August 25, 2018, 07:15:02 PM
Quote from: Syferus on August 25, 2018, 07:08:27 PM
Those are not the fûcking Deftones.
I'd have paid money to see the Deftones performing at this yoke.
They are.
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2018/0217/941448-deaftones-choir-captures-hearts-on-irelands-got-talent/
They are not the Deftones. Aka one of the most popular metal bands of all time.
Croke Park with empty seats. Are the Dubs in the auld triangle bar watching foreign sports instead?
Quote from: Captain Obvious on August 25, 2018, 07:27:25 PM
Croke Park with empty seats. Are the Dubs in the auld triangle bar watching foreign sports instead?
They didn't catch all the protest buyers. In fact I'd be surprised if they caught many of them at all.
Protest buyers. What a shower of gobshites.
We'll show them giving them our money ;D
Quote from: Syferus on August 25, 2018, 07:51:31 PM
Quote from: Captain Obvious on August 25, 2018, 07:27:25 PM
Croke Park with empty seats. Are the Dubs in the auld triangle bar watching foreign sports instead?
They didn't catch all the protest buyers. In fact I'd be surprised if they caught many of them at all.
How does that work? tickets for tonights Croke Park event wasn't free and that money will go towards the World meetings of families regardless if they turn up or not.
I think the Pope would prefer more Riverdance and less Daniel O'Donnell
Daniel hasn't lost it anyway.... ;D ;D
Riverdance was pretty impressive to be fair.
That choir is killing that song :'(
Catholic Church and RTE putting their best foot forward tonight I hope he has a nice few words for Tyrone for next week. Great show.
Quote from: Over the Bar on August 25, 2018, 08:02:06 PM
Daniel hasn't lost it anyway.... ;D ;D
I thought some of the instruments, particularly the piano, were playing in a different key
He must be knackered. On the go 10 hours or more. Isn't he over 80? He should be in bed by now.
He'll sleep well tonight
He'll get a nap on the chopper to and from Knock.
Class the Richardson family pure Dubs
We had a comedian there. Dublin the greatest city in the world ;D
Quote from: Captain Obvious on August 25, 2018, 08:40:01 PM
We had a comedian there. Dublin the greatest city in the world ;D
It's not even the greatest city in Leinster.
All these videos to watch. It's like someone constantly telling you, look at this YouTube video, it's so funny.
Jaysus he must be bored shitless.
The Pope probably thinking, If I hear Ave Maria one more time, I don't know.
Quote from: BennyCake on August 25, 2018, 08:34:26 PM
He'll get a nap on the chopper to and from Knock.
I had to read that twice to be honest
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on August 25, 2018, 08:49:04 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 25, 2018, 08:34:26 PM
He'll get a nap on the chopper to and from Knock.
I had to read that twice to be honest
Aye right enough. So many possible euphemisms in there ;D
Brilliant. No night for cynicism.. What a night..proud of this.
That was a fairly fûcking shïte and meandering speech.
QuoteHe must be knackered. On the go 10 hours or more. Isn't he over 80? He should be in bed by now.
Apparently he was on the go since 4am in Rome this morning, some man for his age. Great production in Croke Park.
Quote from: Syferus on August 25, 2018, 10:13:38 PM
That was a fairly fûcking shïte and meandering speech.
It's all about holding onto what they have.
''A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.'' Out in the open he is not going to rock the boat. This gig is about holding onto those who have not left the Catholic Church, not winning back the one who have left.
I do actually feel sad for the Genuine Priests scattered around the country doing great work. They more than anybody suffer betrayal every day from the way the church has dealt with things.
Perhaps it give Tony Fearon a reason to be in Croke Park.
Traffic question: I've to get past Dublin heading south tomorrow ... is the M50 likely to be flowing or resembling a carpark, thoughts?
It was a well put together Show to be fair to them. Fairly enjoyable.
Quote from: balladmaker on August 25, 2018, 10:44:51 PM
Traffic question: I've to get past Dublin heading south tomorrow ... is the M50 likely to be flowing or resembling a carpark, thoughts?
It'll be a car park.
I was in Croke Park as one of the Choir of Thousands.
It was enjoyable......day flew.
Left my 'buts' and 'wells' at the gate and just enjoyed being part of it.
Yes - his homily was a bit 'meh' but what did you expect?
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on August 25, 2018, 11:44:22 PM
I was in Croke Park as one of the Choir of Thousands.
It was enjoyable......day flew.
Left my 'buts' and 'wells' at the gate and just enjoyed being part of it.
Yes - his homily was a bit 'meh' but what did you expect?
Something with a bit more humility than a rambling speech about the dangers of smartphones at the dinner table and critique of your fûcking sign of the cross technique?
In the context of being 20 years late arriving to apologise for the abuses his company has inflicted on the people of Ireland it was honestly shocking in its relative brazenness. Did he think two minutes with Leo was enough apologising and contrition or something, Sham?
Quote from: Syferus on August 26, 2018, 01:28:44 AM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on August 25, 2018, 11:44:22 PM
I was in Croke Park as one of the Choir of Thousands.
It was enjoyable......day flew.
Left my 'buts' and 'wells' at the gate and just enjoyed being part of it.
Yes - his homily was a bit 'meh' but what did you expect?
Something with a bit more humility than a rambling speech about the dangers of smartphones at the dinner table and critique of your fûcking sign of the cross technique?
In the context of being 20 years late arriving to apologise for the abuses his company has inflicted on the people of Ireland it was honestly shocking in its relative brazenness. Did he think two minutes with Leo was enough apologising and contrition or something, Sham?
What was his speech? I'm stuck in hospital and was channel hopping all evening.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on August 25, 2018, 11:44:22 PM
I was in Croke Park as one of the Choir of Thousands.
It was enjoyable......day flew.
Left my 'buts' and 'wells' at the gate and just enjoyed being part of it.
Yes - his homily was a bit 'meh' but what did you expect?
Good man SS. Glad you enjoyed it. Watched it at home and regretting that I wasn't there. Was in Galway in 1979. We were told that horslips would be playing but it was late when our bus got there. Can you find out if they did actually play that night
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 26, 2018, 01:35:47 AM
Quote from: Syferus on August 26, 2018, 01:28:44 AM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on August 25, 2018, 11:44:22 PM
I was in Croke Park as one of the Choir of Thousands.
It was enjoyable......day flew.
Left my 'buts' and 'wells' at the gate and just enjoyed being part of it.
Yes - his homily was a bit 'meh' but what did you expect?
Something with a bit more humility than a rambling speech about the dangers of smartphones at the dinner table and critique of your fûcking sign of the cross technique?
In the context of being 20 years late arriving to apologise for the abuses his company has inflicted on the people of Ireland it was honestly shocking in its relative brazenness. Did he think two minutes with Leo was enough apologising and contrition or something, Sham?
What was his speech? I'm stuck in hospital and was channel hopping all evening.
It put back the start of Iron Man 3 by 35 minutes, we could leave it at that.
Imagine the bog standard Sunday sermon from an octogenarian parish priest with references to the Cold War, modern technology being dangerous, the importance of family, but add in that he felt like he had zero time restraints so he droned on and on for page after page after page. I was amazed at how poor it was.
If he just said three or four paragraphs and properly apologised to the Irish people he would have been praised endlessly in the media tomorrow but he let his own ego overtake him in a way that suggests despite him being better at PR than Ratzinger, he really doesn't get the hole the Church in the West is in, which is entirely of its own creation. Words are starting to ring very hollow with the fella given the action has not really amounted to anything of note.
I was also shocked that a celebration of family seemed entirely fixated on the most narrow description of family possible - two parents (of different sexes, but even I wasn't expecting respect being show to same sex families) and children. No single mothers, no widowed fathers, no childless married couples, at least from the 80% of it I saw. I had to chase a calf down the field to give him a dose around the time Riverdance was on, though.
It was frankly embarrassing to watch.
Jesus you're an angry person
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on August 26, 2018, 02:16:26 AM
Jesus you're an angry person
He's just crying out for attention! Wish people would stop quoting him as it destroys the ignore function.
I haven't been to many octogenarian priest's masses in a while. Our local curate, though in his 70s gives a lovely homily any time I go to mass.
He might apologise today in the Phoenix Park. And even that would only be words Syf...
Quote from: balladmaker on August 25, 2018, 10:20:57 PM
QuoteHe must be knackered. On the go 10 hours or more. Isn't he over 80? He should be in bed by now.
Apparently he was on the go since 4am in Rome this morning, some man for his age. Great production in Croke Park.
Thats it. The man is 81 i think. Fair play to him, he looked wrecked near the end. Hopefully weather fairs up a little for today.
Found it sorta captivating.
Had zero interest in it until yesterday morning. So far all the speeches have been on the ball for the audience and timing. Thought the Pope's one last night was spot on. All about family values and none of this heaven or hell or damnation or paradise shite.
But today is crucial. Like Mickey next week, he has to do something big.
The Pope - You think he'd be taller.
Roscommon, heathens county lol
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/26/pope-francis-failed-to-act-on-abuse-claims-says-former-vatican-envoy
Yikes.
Desperation in Mayo as they get the Pope to sign a jersey to attempt to lift the curse!
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1033659822208692224/video/1 (https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1033659822208692224/video/1)
I hear those that traveled to Knock this morning were forced to park their cars 2 miles outside of Knock in mucky fields and the people mostly old ones had to walk. Shuttle buses from Claremorris were meant to be the best option as they were to bring people close to event but Garda on the N17 wouldn't allow cars onto Claremorris and directed them to knock instead it all sounded like a total shambles. On top of all of that every there got soaked to the skin with the non stop rain.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on August 26, 2018, 03:44:33 PM
Desperation in Mayo as they get the Pope to sign a jersey to attempt to lift the curse!
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1033659822208692224/video/1 (https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1033659822208692224/video/1)
Mayo for Sam 2019, then.
Just back in from seeing him in the Park. It didn't seem like there was half a million people there. In our section where were maybe 30. It could have held 150 or more. Did they give any attendance figures
Quote from: gerrykeegan on August 26, 2018, 05:09:26 PM
Just back in from seeing him in the Park. It didn't seem like there was half a million people there. In our section where were maybe 30. It could have held 150 or more. Did they give any attendance figures
Bbc reported 300,000
Quote from: BennyCake on August 26, 2018, 05:13:24 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on August 26, 2018, 05:09:26 PM
Just back in from seeing him in the Park. It didn't seem like there was half a million people there. In our section where were maybe 30. It could have held 150 or more. Did they give any attendance figures
Bbc reported 300,000
Read 130,000'somewhere else...
Did I read somewhere that protestors hoovered up thousands of tickets??
Quote from: BennyCake on August 26, 2018, 05:13:24 PM
Quote from: gerrykeegan on August 26, 2018, 05:09:26 PM
Just back in from seeing him in the Park. It didn't seem like there was half a million people there. In our section where were maybe 30. It could have held 150 or more. Did they give any attendance figures
Bbc reported 300,000
Closer to 3,000 than 300,000.
Very scattered crowd looking at the overhead pictures. Near 2 hours of boring mass can imagine many in attendance nodded off.
Seems like 130,000 attended:
https://www.donegalnow.com/news/numbers-phoenix-park-well-expectations-papal-mass-estimates-put-crowd-130000/244995
(https://i.imgur.com/1CkHN30.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/NW9S8U0.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/brT8xWR.jpg?1)
This is not only protestors, this is people with tickets who couldn't be ars ed walking or getting wet. Yet there were probably another 100,000 who might have gone with those tickets.
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2018, 06:10:56 PM
This is not only protestors, this is people with tickets who couldn't be ars ed walking or getting wet. Yet there were probably another 100,000 who might have gone with those tickets.
Proof?
Why get tickets and not attend in protest? Couldn't they just er, not attend?
One of the most disappointing things for me was his failure to speak, or even say sorry, in English. His message was fine but I didn't hear it from him, I heard it from someone telling me what he had said yet the man was able to read some bits in English. Was there anything As Gaeilge?
Quote from: Syferus on August 26, 2018, 06:17:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2018, 06:10:56 PM
This is not only protestors, this is people with tickets who couldn't be ars ed walking or getting wet. Yet there were probably another 100,000 who might have gone with those tickets.
Proof?
There were hundreds of thousands at mass today, some of those might have gone. But unless I give you a list of their names no doubt you'll argue with me anyway.
Those most likely to go were the late middle aged and elderly who are the core of the Catholic church in Ireland. All of the logistical advice and warnings about being able to walk 5Km, sit outside for several hours and then walk 5Km back to your transport. Add a long journey to and from Dublin and you eliminate a considerable number of potential attendees.
There was none of this health and safety nonsense in 1979.
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on August 26, 2018, 07:35:28 PM
Those most likely to go were the late middle aged and elderly who are the core of the Catholic church in Ireland. All of the logistical advice and warnings about being able to walk 5Km, sit outside for several hours and then walk 5Km back to your transport. Add a long journey to and from Dublin and you eliminate a considerable number of potential attendees.
There was none of this health and safety nonsense in 1979.
If they only expected 150,000 then the buses could have parked closer. Not great organisation, all in all.
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2018, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on August 26, 2018, 06:17:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2018, 06:10:56 PM
This is not only protestors, this is people with tickets who couldn't be ars ed walking or getting wet. Yet there were probably another 100,000 who might have gone with those tickets.
Proof?
There were hundreds of thousands at mass today, some of those might have gone. But unless I give you a list of their names no doubt you'll argue with me anyway.
So you just grabbed a number that sounded good from your arse, then?
Quote from: Syferus on August 26, 2018, 07:39:23 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2018, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on August 26, 2018, 06:17:26 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2018, 06:10:56 PM
This is not only protestors, this is people with tickets who couldn't be ars ed walking or getting wet. Yet there were probably another 100,000 who might have gone with those tickets.
Proof?
There were hundreds of thousands at mass today, some of those might have gone. But unless I give you a list of their names no doubt you'll argue with me anyway.
So you just grabbed a number that sounded good from your arse, then?
I did round off a number. So what, this is a discussion board not planning the logistics for the Pope.
I enjoyed my day in Phoenix Park, lovely friendly atmosphere.
He did speak a few words in Irish. The first reading was also as gaeilge.
Thought Francis got it right again today.
He's wading is way through a tide he can't ever turn. Today was a good as it gets. I don't think he did any more harm to what has been done and maybe will slightly swell mass-going for a week or two.
Quote from: Rois on August 26, 2018, 08:16:49 PM
I enjoyed my day in Phoenix Park, lovely friendly atmosphere.
He did speak a few words in Irish. The first reading was also as gaeilge.
I thought his preface to the Mass today was more poignant as it was in his own tongue. I think that's the only time he spoke it over the weekend.
It's hard to round up a half million sheep in modern Ireland.
JP had a much easier ride in 79. He was preaching to the converted and was a superstar. Francis was facing the complete opposite.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2rz7u5y.jpg)
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2018, 07:39:09 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on August 26, 2018, 07:35:28 PM
Those most likely to go were the late middle aged and elderly who are the core of the Catholic church in Ireland. All of the logistical advice and warnings about being able to walk 5Km, sit outside for several hours and then walk 5Km back to your transport. Add a long journey to and from Dublin and you eliminate a considerable number of potential attendees.
There was none of this health and safety nonsense in 1979.
If they only expected 150,000 then the buses could have parked closer. Not great organisation, all in all.
if they were only only expecting the 130,000 that showed up it wouldn't have been in the park in the first place, and Dublin would not have been shut down at a cost of 32m.
This was a flop, a farce and an own goal
Bad turn out even from the Clergy themselves!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DliBHcnXcAAeVYk.jpg:large)
where did the 130k estimate come from? My ticket was not scanned as I went in so there can't be official figures to say that. Many "corrals" were empty because they didn't have a view of tv screens whilst others were over-capacity, and we just went into one that was more suitable. It felt like much more than 1.5x Croke Park.
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 26, 2018, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 26, 2018, 07:39:09 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on August 26, 2018, 07:35:28 PM
Those most likely to go were the late middle aged and elderly who are the core of the Catholic church in Ireland. All of the logistical advice and warnings about being able to walk 5Km, sit outside for several hours and then walk 5Km back to your transport. Add a long journey to and from Dublin and you eliminate a considerable number of potential attendees.
There was none of this health and safety nonsense in 1979.
If they only expected 150,000 then the buses could have parked closer. Not great organisation, all in all.
if they were only only expecting the 130,000 that showed up it wouldn't have been in the park in the first place, and Dublin would not have been shut down at a cost of 32m.
This was a flop, a farce and an own goal
32 million? Funny how they can't find that sort of money to build houses.
Would only build 128 in Dublin....
But would be a start.
I wonder does Leo Varadkar feel any guilt for the abuse of 3,500 children sleeping in emergency hotel rooms tonight?
Quote from: Rossfan on August 26, 2018, 11:12:28 PM
Would only build 128 in Dublin....
But would be a start.
I wonder does Leo Varadkar feel any guilt for the abuse of 3,500 children sleeping in emergency hotel rooms tonight?
Yes. Let's try to change the spotlight the weekend that a Pope visits for the first time in 40 years. You definitely don't have ulterior motives or anything.
Looked a lot less than 130k there. More like 50/60k max.
Quote from: Syferus on August 26, 2018, 11:18:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 26, 2018, 11:12:28 PM
Would only build 128 in Dublin....
But would be a start.
I wonder does Leo Varadkar feel any guilt for the abuse of 3,500 children sleeping in emergency hotel rooms tonight?
Yes. Let's try to change the spotlight the weekend that a Pope visits for the first time n 40 years. You definitely don't have ulterior motives or anything.
He has a point though.
Quote from: Syferus on August 26, 2018, 11:18:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 26, 2018, 11:12:28 PM
Would only build 128 in Dublin....
But would be a start.
I wonder does Leo Varadkar feel any guilt for the abuse of 3,500 children sleeping in emergency hotel rooms tonight?
Yes. Let's try to change the spotlight the weekend that a Pope visits for the first time in 40 years. You definitely don't have ulterior motives or anything.
Pope was here on a work trip. Its outrageous that the taxpayer had to fund this.
Quote from: Rois on August 26, 2018, 09:59:02 PM
where did the 130k estimate come from? My ticket was not scanned as I went in so there can't be official figures to say that. Many "corrals" were empty because they didn't have a view of tv screens whilst others were over-capacity, and we just went into one that was more suitable. It felt like much more than 1.5x Croke Park.
The guards
Quote from: sid waddell on August 26, 2018, 11:39:12 PM
Looked a lot less than 130k there. More like 50/60k max.
Hard to be exact. But clear that as an event and as a PR exercise it was a flop. The church are probably now getting a belated insight into their significance in in Ireland.
It's also difficult to put a number on how many of that crowd were conscripts ie coach parties organised by schools and parishes and stocked with kids and choristers
Quote from: T Fearon on September 28, 2015, 06:06:43 PM
Looks very likely! Will undoubtedly spark off a much needed spiritual revival.
Finger in the pulse as always
The Pope said he was shocked by the Tuam mother and dead baby home. It wasn't Church policy in fairness. It wasn't a global system.
Just when he thought he got away with everythign he kicked one into his own net on the way home on the plane. He doesn't sound like a man that wants "firm and decisive" action to secure "truth and justice"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/vatican-ex-ambassador-pens-jaccuse-in-mccarrick-affair/2018/08/26/c33a48ec-a8f3-11e8-ad6f-080770dcddc2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.80599dd02c2c
Some amount of hypocrites in on here! Saying you have so many misgivings for the Catholic church I hope you don't bother to waste time looking for burials in church graveyards or final blessing in when you time comes!!
Quote from: BennyCake on August 26, 2018, 11:46:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 26, 2018, 11:12:28 PM
Would only build 128 in Dublin....
But would be a start.
I wonder does Leo Varadkar feel any guilt for the abuse of 3,500 children sleeping in emergency hotel rooms tonight?
He has a point though.
And Zappone the Minister for Children getting in on the "Kick the Pope" bandwagon today while 3,500 children slept in hotel rooms lady night.
The Pope/Church well deserved a good kick but none of our Government Ministers or their apologists are in any fit place to be doing the kicking.
In fact the State had plenty to answer for too.
While neither Church or State can undo the past the Government can certainly do plenty more to stop the abuse of the present if they had a will to do so.
Quote from: Rossfan on August 27, 2018, 11:29:11 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 26, 2018, 11:46:00 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 26, 2018, 11:12:28 PM
Would only build 128 in Dublin....
But would be a start.
I wonder does Leo Varadkar feel any guilt for the abuse of 3,500 children sleeping in emergency hotel rooms tonight?
He has a point though.
And Zappone the Minister for Children getting in on the "Kick the Pope" bandwagon today while 3,500 children slept in hotel rooms lady night.
The Pope/Church well deserved a good kick but none of our Government Ministers or their apologists are in any fit place to be doing the kicking.
In fact the State had plenty to answer for too.
While neither Church or State can undo the past the Government can certainly do plenty more to stop the abuse of the present if they had a will to do so.
And given that story about Tusla a few weeks back it'd be much more in Zappone's line to be getting to the bottom of that rather than playing to her fans in the media.
We spent over 100 euro in Drumcondra on Saturday afternoon and all the cafes were bunged so it wasn't all bad. The concert in Croke Park was a great experience for our family.
Quotehttps://twitter.com/vincentbrowne/status/1033783910419836935
RTE's reverential coverage of the Pope's visit was not journalism. It was propaganda for an institution that has been criminally complicit in the rape and buggery of children around the world and is the prime institutional carrier of mysogyny and homophobia.
Quote from: Sportacus on August 27, 2018, 11:54:31 AM
We spent over 100 euro in Drumcondra on Saturday afternoon and all the cafes were bunged so it wasn't all bad. The concert in Croke Park was a great experience for our family.
But that happens at matches and gigs anyway. The taxpayer never covers those tickets.
Fair enough, my point simply is that we wouldn't have been in Drumcondra otherwise so there was plenty of extra business being done on Saturday it seemed to me.
It's no surprise that the Pope's visit was underwhelming (at least in media coverage). I would imagine for those who attended and who wanted to attend for all the right reasons, that it was a great occasion.
Lot's of leaders visit other countries. And those countries foot the bill. The media also cover things with the right amount of respect and reverance based on the occasion. Windsor weddings.....?
I didn't expect any more than the comments on here. The purification of the Church is well underway.
Quote from: MoChara on August 27, 2018, 08:06:16 AM
Just when he thought he got away with everythign he kicked one into his own net on the way home on the plane. He doesn't sound like a man that wants "firm and decisive" action to secure "truth and justice"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/vatican-ex-ambassador-pens-jaccuse-in-mccarrick-affair/2018/08/26/c33a48ec-a8f3-11e8-ad6f-080770dcddc2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.80599dd02c2c
Too early to call that one yet. That story has a bit to run
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on August 27, 2018, 11:11:51 AM
Some amount of hypocrites in on here! Saying you have so many misgivings for the Catholic church I hope you don't bother to waste time looking for burials in church graveyards or final blessing in when you time comes!!
I wasn't intending to and I'm not a hypocrite
Only a matter time before non religious ceremonies to mark a death or celebrate a life get some traction. Some form of hygienic incineration will do for me. A few on here seem to think my incineration will take care of itself
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2018, 12:20:05 PM
It's no surprise that the Pope's visit was underwhelming (at least in media coverage). I would imagine for those who attended and who wanted to attend for all the right reasons, that it was a great occasion.
Lot's of leaders visit other countries. And those countries foot the bill. The media also cover things with the right amount of respect and reverance based on the occasion. Windsor weddings.....?
I didn't expect any more than the comments on here. The purification of the Church is well underway.
What was great about it? Did he do something great or say something great? Or was it his mere presence that was great in which case have we not stumbled into idolatry?
If the church needs purification then surely you must admit it's moral authority is gone?
What is evidence that purification is underway? I set out the entry level purification standards in a post before the visit. He didn't come close to meeting those standards. I saw no actions that indicated that purification was either underway or on the horizon
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2018, 12:20:05 PM
It's no surprise that the Pope's visit was underwhelming (at least in media coverage). I would imagine for those who attended and who wanted to attend for all the right reasons, that it was a great occasion.
Lot's of leaders visit other countries. And those countries foot the bill. The media also cover things with the right amount of respect and reverance based on the occasion. Windsor weddings.....?
I didn't expect any more than the comments on here. The purification of the Church is well underway.
How was it in any way underwhelming? It was front page news of every paper and on TV non stop ffs.
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2018, 12:20:05 PM
It's no surprise that the Pope's visit was underwhelming (at least in media coverage). I would imagine for those who attended and who wanted to attend for all the right reasons, that it was a great occasion.
Lot's of leaders visit other countries. And those countries foot the bill. The media also cover things with the right amount of respect and reverance based on the occasion. Windsor weddings.....?
I didn't expect any more than the comments on here. The purification of the Church is well underway.
Have talked to plenty that attended the Knock event and according to them it was far from a great occasion, most of them upset at how poorly the event was organized.
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2018, 12:20:05 PM
It's no surprise that the Pope's visit was underwhelming (at least in media coverage). I would imagine for those who attended and who wanted to attend for all the right reasons, that it was a great occasion.
Lot's of leaders visit other countries. And those countries foot the bill. The media also cover things with the right amount of respect and reverance based on the occasion. Windsor weddings.....?
I didn't expect any more than the comments on here. The purification of the Church is well underway.
He wasnt invited here and it wasnt a state visit. It was an internal church event. Massively inappropriate to invite himself and tap us up for the cost, doubly so as his company owes us hundreds of millions.
Literally this weekend an archbishop and former Vatican diplomat accused Pope Francis of being complicit in not acting on a sex abuse claim five years ago. That's 2013, folks. Not 1979, not 1997.
"The purification of the church is well underway". It is my arse.
Quote from: Syferus on August 27, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
Literally this weekend an archbishop and former Vatican diplomat accused Pope Francis of being complicit in not acting on a sex abuse claim five years ago. That's 2013, folks. Not 1979, not 1997.
"The purification of the church is well underway". It is my arse.
You just made my point Syferus. I believe there will be and there is currently a purging of the hierarchy and possibly right to the top. The Vatican Diplomat is calling for the resignation of Pope Francis. The homosexual networks were exposed in Pennsylvania, the pedophiles continue to be exposed and those that protect them. If we can get them out of the Church then surely that is a good thing. As people leave and the corrupt clergy are outed/removed then surely the purification has begun?
This guy is also mega conservative and severely homophobic with a big agenda against the Pope and moves to liberalise the church. So I wouldn't be taking his word for anything either tbh!
This is not a defence either, just saying.
Iceman, I think you should clear up your language. You may think homosexuality is sinful, and it is certainly against the doctrine of the Church you belong to - but it should not be equated - in any way - with paedophilia.
If that is not your intent, fair enough.
What happened in Pennsylvania was an absolute orgy of depravity, rape and vicious assault - carried out by paedophiles. Some of the things described in the report speak to an unspeakable cruelty in the perpetrators. If you read about the same happening in a wartime concentration camp, you could - just about - rationalise its existence. For this to be still happening, in a modern, secular democracy is mind bending.
The church will not be renewed or purified until the culture of secrecy is removed. That culture will never be gone, no matter what procedures re child protection are put in, until the Church faces up to the reality of human sexuality. Perhaps when we have married priests, mature and comfortable in discussing and accepting human sexuality, including LGBTQ, then the Church will no longer be a breeding ground for these twisted, immature monsters.
Quote from: easytiger95 on August 27, 2018, 03:18:24 PM
Perhaps when we have married priests, mature and comfortable in discussing and accepting human sexuality, including LGBTQ, then the Church will no longer be a breeding ground for these twisted, immature monsters.
The Roman Catholic Church considers homosexuality unnatural, though it quite obviously isn't.
How can it square that with its promotion of the denial of human sexuality, which
is quite obviously unnatural?
Quote from: easytiger95 on August 27, 2018, 03:18:24 PM
Iceman, I think you should clear up your language. You may think homosexuality is sinful, and it is certainly against the doctrine of the Church you belong to - but it should not be equated - in any way - with paedophilia.
If that is not your intent, fair enough.
What happened in Pennsylvania was an absolute orgy of depravity, rape and vicious assault - carried out by paedophiles. Some of the things described in the report speak to an unspeakable cruelty in the perpetrators. If you read about the same happening in a wartime concentration camp, you could - just about - rationalise its existence. For this to be still happening, in a modern, secular democracy is mind bending.
The church will not be renewed or purified until the culture of secrecy is removed. That culture will never be gone, no matter what procedures re child protection are put in, until the Church faces up to the reality of human sexuality. Perhaps when we have married priests, mature and comfortable in discussing and accepting human sexuality, including LGBTQ, then the Church will no longer be a breeding ground for these twisted, immature monsters.
Pedophilia was a much smaller part of the abuse in PA than homosexual abuse. The majority of the victims were not little children. They were late teens and young adults. Young men raped in seminary, talk of "pink parties" with older priests, bishops and cardinals in open homosexual hook ups. Priests warning seminarians to lock their doors at night. The evidence would suggest that a homosexual ring exists in the church hierarchy and this ring covers up and allows abuse to happen. That's what the PA scandal points too. In Harrisburg, PA they purposely paraded a majority female group of victims but this was not characteristic at all of the majority. Given the current climate the media is distancing itself from labeling anything homosexual.
"while some of the victims were girls, the vast majority of victims were males ranging from prepubescent to young seminarians."
"The study also said it was inaccurate to refer to abusers as "pedophile priests," given that less than 5 percent of alleged abusive priests displayed behavior consistent with pedophilia, and the majority of victims examined in the report were pubescent or postpubescent minors."
There are letters like this being written to the faithful all over North America by clergy trying to stand up to the current, broken and corrupt hierarchy:
http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopsletters/7730-letter-scandal.html (http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopsletters/7730-letter-scandal.html)
Can you tell me where the sentences in quotation marks came from? If they are directly from the report, could you cite the pages or a link?
Quote from: easytiger95 on August 27, 2018, 04:10:41 PM
Can you tell me where the sentences in quotation marks came from? If they are directly from the report, could you cite the pages or a link?
They were an example of some things being said by Bishops. I took them from Bishop Morlino's letter to his diocese (Madison, Wisconsin). In the second quote he is referring to a broader study on abuse by Catholic Priests from 2011 that would support his claims about a homosexual hierarchy PDF here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf)
Sorry I didn't include earlier I write how I speak and don't provide handouts all the time :)
So they don't actually relate specifically to the Pennsylvania report?
That is either spectacularly careless or spectacularly dishonest.
The Bishop's first "quote" says that victims were in the main male - to obviously advance an anti homosexual agenda - before he contradicts himself by saying that they ranged from prepubescent to young seminarians. In other words, children, teenagers and young men. So the vast majority of victims were under the age of consent and the others looked young.
And his second quote was in relation to a 2011 study.
The church is too busy demonising homosexuals to actually go after paedophiles.
Very, very dishonest Iceman. Very disappointing on your part.
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2018, 03:48:50 PMGiven the current climate the media is distancing itself from labeling anything homosexual.
Yeah, the big media is the issue here
Quote from: easytiger95 on August 27, 2018, 04:37:06 PM
So they don't actually relate specifically to the Pennsylvania report?
That is either spectacularly careless or spectacularly dishonest.
The Bishop's first "quote" says that victims were in the main male - to obviously advance an anti homosexual agenda - before he contradicts himself by saying that they ranged from prepubescent to young seminarians. In other words, children, teenagers and young men. So the vast majority of victims were under the age of consent and the others looked young.
And his second quote was in relation to a 2011 study.
The church is too busy demonising homosexuals to actually go after paedophiles.
Very, very dishonest Iceman. Very disappointing on your part.
was not the intent - If you read the findings of the report (save you reading the entire thing) it will contextualize the points the bishop was making about PA and the links to the 2011 report.
Only 5% of the abusers in the report (2011 report) (which details abuse in the last 80 years I think) display or displayed characteristics associated with Pedophilia. Draw your own conclusions from that. This is in line with the findings in PA. He's making a connection with two reports.
That is not in line with the findings of PA, so stop talking bullshit. Over 1000 children - children - were found by the grand jury report to have been abused by priests, with the vast majority of abuse beginning before their teens.
But don't let that stop you or your Bishop politicizing that to promote an anti-gay agenda.
Clowns, but thankfully obsolete clowns.
There is a very sinister narrative emerging. The church doesnt have a peadophilia problem, it has a gay priest problem. If they were just more homophobic all would be fixed.
Aside from conflating homosexuality and paedophilia, it choses to miss the point for agenda reasons. And enables the beasts
Disgusting contribution from Iceman, for the reasons Baile Brigin outlined.
I have no issues with my comments. You can read in to them and make them whatever you want. I am not coming forward, countless Bishops are, in Diocese across America and writing letters to the congregations that there is a homosexual problem within the hierarchy of the church.
The 2011 report clearly points to 95% of priests caught in abuse not displaying any characteristics typical of a pedophile.
The Bishop implicated - McCarrick - in the PA report, as the highest in the hierarchy during the times of abuse - and accused of abuse of children and seminarians was known for his homosexual parties, hook ups and rape.
Why are homosexual men raping children and why are they raping mostly boys? 80%+ of the victims in PA were boys.
I do not claim to know why.
I am simply feeding back to you what was reported in 2011, what Bishops are saying today in light of the PA report and what Bishops think will spark purification in the church.
It may well go to the very top with the resignation of Pope Francis who has been accused of being part of the cover up.
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 27, 2018, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2018, 12:20:05 PM
It's no surprise that the Pope's visit was underwhelming (at least in media coverage). I would imagine for those who attended and who wanted to attend for all the right reasons, that it was a great occasion.
Lot's of leaders visit other countries. And those countries foot the bill. The media also cover things with the right amount of respect and reverance based on the occasion. Windsor weddings.....?
I didn't expect any more than the comments on here. The purification of the Church is well underway.
He wasnt invited here and it wasnt a state visit. It was an internal church event. Massively inappropriate to invite himself and tap us up for the cost, doubly so as his company owes us hundreds of millions.
There is an audience who just don't want to hear that.
Ireland has had a conversation with itself in the run up to this (non) event. That has to worth something. Probably not €32m.
On another front the expenditure probably doesn't represent a dangerous precedent as it is unlikely that there will ever be another papal visit
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2018, 03:02:23 PM
Quote from: Syferus on August 27, 2018, 02:43:28 PM
Literally this weekend an archbishop and former Vatican diplomat accused Pope Francis of being complicit in not acting on a sex abuse claim five years ago. That's 2013, folks. Not 1979, not 1997.
"The purification of the church is well underway". It is my arse.
You just made my point Syferus. I believe there will be and there is currently a purging of the hierarchy and possibly right to the top. The Vatican Diplomat is calling for the resignation of Pope Francis. The homosexual networks were exposed in Pennsylvania, the pedophiles continue to be exposed and those that protect them. If we can get them out of the Church then surely that is a good thing. As people leave and the corrupt clergy are outed/removed then surely the purification has begun?
Does anybody think it is likely that Iceman would describe a group of men who raped women as a heterosexual network?
The Catholic Church is losing punters in Europe over abuse and because of education but doesn't care because the focus now is in the third world. Allowing priests to marry or women to be priests would over time reduce the pool of rapists but won't happen because of the conservatism of the flock where most of the punters live.
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 27, 2018, 05:23:38 PM
There is a very sinister narrative emerging. The church doesnt have a peadophilia problem, it has a gay priest problem. If they were just more homophobic all would be fixed.
Aside from conflating homosexuality and paedophilia, it choses to miss the point for agenda reasons. And enables the beasts
The narrative should be that the church has a cover up problem.
Quote from: armaghniac on August 27, 2018, 07:44:33 PM
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 27, 2018, 05:23:38 PM
There is a very sinister narrative emerging. The church doesnt have a peadophilia problem, it has a gay priest problem. If they were just more homophobic all would be fixed.
Aside from conflating homosexuality and paedophilia, it choses to miss the point for agenda reasons. And enables the beasts
The narrative should be that the church has a cover up problem.
The narrative is a good longer than that.
The church has a relevance issue. Relevance is a subjective measure. Each decides for themselves what is relevant. But the votes are in and have been counted. In Ireland like the rest of the western world the church's relevance is marginal and declining.
The church has an ethical issue. There seems to be an absence of ethical fibre at the core of the church. The horrific short comings in the response to the continuous abuse scandal confirms the emptiness at the heart of the church.
The church has leadership issues. It doesn't know what way to go next and it doesn't know where to find uncontaminated leaders.
The church has criminal issues. It will continue to find difficulties unless it comes to terms with the fact that the criminality it oversees will ultimately be exposed to the criminal justice system and it would be best to come clean.
In short it is dysfunctional and it's dysfunction is endemic
Quote from: smelmoth on August 27, 2018, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 27, 2018, 07:44:33 PM
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 27, 2018, 05:23:38 PM
There is a very sinister narrative emerging. The church doesnt have a peadophilia problem, it has a gay priest problem. If they were just more homophobic all would be fixed.
Aside from conflating homosexuality and paedophilia, it choses to miss the point for agenda reasons. And enables the beasts
The narrative should be that the church has a cover up problem.
The narrative is a good longer than that.
The church has a relevance issue. Relevance is a subjective measure. Each decides for themselves what is relevant. But the votes are in and have been counted. In Ireland like the rest of the western world the church's relevance is marginal and declining.
The church has an ethical issue. There seems to be an absence of ethical fibre at the core of the church. The horrific short comings in the response to the continuous abuse scandal confirms the emptiness at the heart of the church.
The church has leadership issues. It doesn't know what way to go next and it doesn't know where to find uncontaminated leaders.
The church has criminal issues. It will continue to find difficulties unless it comes to terms with the fact that the criminality it oversees will ultimately be exposed to the criminal justice system and it would be best to come clean.
In short it is dysfunctional and it's dysfunction is endemic
The core problem is celibacy. It means the church is a magnet for predators. Even if 95% of priests are decent the predators do wanton damage.
Leadership is atrocious. Zero accountability.
And now they have lost the people which is institutional cancer.
Of course Ireland will remain culturally catholic for a long time after the music dies....
Quote from: seafoid on August 27, 2018, 09:45:52 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on August 27, 2018, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 27, 2018, 07:44:33 PM
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 27, 2018, 05:23:38 PM
There is a very sinister narrative emerging. The church doesnt have a peadophilia problem, it has a gay priest problem. If they were just more homophobic all would be fixed.
Aside from conflating homosexuality and paedophilia, it choses to miss the point for agenda reasons. And enables the beasts
The narrative should be that the church has a cover up problem.
The narrative is a good longer than that.
The church has a relevance issue. Relevance is a subjective measure. Each decides for themselves what is relevant. But the votes are in and have been counted. In Ireland like the rest of the western world the church's relevance is marginal and declining.
The church has an ethical issue. There seems to be an absence of ethical fibre at the core of the church. The horrific short comings in the response to the continuous abuse scandal confirms the emptiness at the heart of the church.
The church has leadership issues. It doesn't know what way to go next and it doesn't know where to find uncontaminated leaders.
The church has criminal issues. It will continue to find difficulties unless it comes to terms with the fact that the criminality it oversees will ultimately be exposed to the criminal justice system and it would be best to come clean.
In short it is dysfunctional and it's dysfunction is endemic
The core problem is celibacy. It means the church is a magnet for predators. Even if 95% of priests are decent the predators do wanton damage.
Leadership is atrocious. Zero accountability.
And now they have lost the people which is institutional cancer.
Of course Ireland will remain culturally catholic for a long time after the music dies....
Surely the catholic church's core problem is the lack of a god? Snake oil salesmen with a range of major problems (as outlined above)
Quote from: smelmoth on August 27, 2018, 09:51:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on August 27, 2018, 09:45:52 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on August 27, 2018, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on August 27, 2018, 07:44:33 PM
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 27, 2018, 05:23:38 PM
There is a very sinister narrative emerging. The church doesnt have a peadophilia problem, it has a gay priest problem. If they were just more homophobic all would be fixed.
Aside from conflating homosexuality and paedophilia, it choses to miss the point for agenda reasons. And enables the beasts
The narrative should be that the church has a cover up problem.
The narrative is a good longer than that.
The church has a relevance issue. Relevance is a subjective measure. Each decides for themselves what is relevant. But the votes are in and have been counted. In Ireland like the rest of the western world the church's relevance is marginal and declining.
The church has an ethical issue. There seems to be an absence of ethical fibre at the core of the church. The horrific short comings in the response to the continuous abuse scandal confirms the emptiness at the heart of the church.
The church has leadership issues. It doesn't know what way to go next and it doesn't know where to find uncontaminated leaders.
The church has criminal issues. It will continue to find difficulties unless it comes to terms with the fact that the criminality it oversees will ultimately be exposed to the criminal justice system and it would be best to come clean.
In short it is dysfunctional and it's dysfunction is endemic
The core problem is celibacy. It means the church is a magnet for predators. Even if 95% of priests are decent the predators do wanton damage.
Leadership is atrocious. Zero accountability.
And now they have lost the people which is institutional cancer.
Of course Ireland will remain culturally catholic for a long time after the music dies....
Surely the catholic church's core problem is the lack of a god? Snake oil salesmen with a range of major problems (as outlined above)
Not necessarily. Groupthink can be very helpful
Quote from: seafoid on August 27, 2018, 09:45:52 PM
The core problem is celibacy. It means the church is a magnet for predators. Even if 95% of priests are decent the predators do wanton damage.
A change in celibacy may or may not be desirable, but it is not the core problem. The core issue is access, not many of these paedos join enclosed orders.
QuoteLeadership is atrocious. Zero accountability.
There is the real problem.
Quote from: armaghniac on August 27, 2018, 10:10:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on August 27, 2018, 09:45:52 PM
The core problem is celibacy. It means the church is a magnet for predators. Even if 95% of priests are decent the predators do wanton damage.
A change in celibacy may or may not be desirable, but it is not the core problem. The core issue is access, not many of these paedos join enclosed orders.
[quoteLeadership is atrocious. Zero accountability.
There is the real problem.
[/quote]i saw something on the Irish Times site in a video where researchers estimate a total of 1200 clerical abusers. That is more than on the sex offenders register i imagine and a shocking concentration that is bigger than amongst sports coaches, the other prominent paedo host.
Celibacy is a huge problem because it influences the profile of the community and attracts the wrong kind of people. The leadership deficit means that managers are unable to manage behavior. The result is a catastrophe.
The big problem is that the church can count upon 500k moronic sheep to ignore their rape and cover up and come out and wave at the leader of this vile organisation. The moronic sheep are the problem. Baa Baa
Quote from: Itchy on August 27, 2018, 10:53:15 PM
The big problem is that the church can count upon 500k moronic sheep to ignore their rape and cover up and come out and wave at the leader of this vile organisation. The moronic sheep are the problem. Baa Baa
They didnt get approaching 500k though.
Being Atheist or Agnostic does not make you more intelligent than the next man. Calling people sheep and morons, in fact, makes you less intelligent.
No it doesn't.
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 03:22:30 PM
Being Atheist or Agnostic does not make you more intelligent than the next man. Calling people sheep and morons, in fact, makes you less intelligent.
Studies show it makes you more intelligent than the blindly religious though.
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 03:22:30 PM
Being Atheist or Agnostic does not make you more intelligent than the next man. Calling people sheep and morons, in fact, makes you less intelligent.
Seems to be the popular belief that it does though, what was that about sheep and morons again? ;)
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 28, 2018, 03:39:36 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 03:22:30 PM
Being Atheist or Agnostic does not make you more intelligent than the next man. Calling people sheep and morons, in fact, makes you less intelligent.
Studies show it makes you more intelligent than the blindly religious though.
The blindly religious? I'm not blind. I've spent more time studying Catholic Faith than you have I would imagine. There's nothing blind about my Faith.
And calling people names rather than discussing things, in my opinion (for gallsman), shows a lack of intelligence. If you resort to name calling to make a point then you don't have a point.
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 28, 2018, 03:39:36 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 03:22:30 PM
Being Atheist or Agnostic does not make you more intelligent than the next man. Calling people sheep and morons, in fact, makes you less intelligent.
Studies show it makes you more intelligent than the blindly religious though.
The blindly religious? I'm not blind. I've spent more time studying Catholic Faith than you have I would imagine. There's nothing blind about my Faith.
And calling people names rather than discussing things, in my opinion (for gallsman), shows a lack of intelligence. If you resort to name calling to make a point then you don't have a point.
I didnt call you anything. I just pointed out there are countless studies that show a correlation between thinking for yourself and intelligence. If yiu chose to be insulted by that it says more about you than me.
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on August 28, 2018, 03:39:36 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 03:22:30 PM
Being Atheist or Agnostic does not make you more intelligent than the next man. Calling people sheep and morons, in fact, makes you less intelligent.
Studies show it makes you more intelligent than the blindly religious though.
The blindly religious? I'm not blind. I've spent more time studying Catholic Faith than you have I would imagine. There's nothing blind about my Faith.
And calling people names rather than discussing things, in my opinion (for gallsman), shows a lack of intelligence. If you resort to name calling to make a point then you don't have a point.
a) I didn't call anyone any names
b) calling someone a name or not is not an indicator of intelligence.
Try not to take it personally Iceman!
In my book the problem with a group that has a paedo ring in its midst and a history WORLDWIDE of covering it up is that there are people out there that empower it. So when the leader of this group comes to the country and a bunch of people flock to see him- well yes, for me they are moronic sheep. I could call them rape apologists, rape enablers, people who spit in the face of all the victime of this vile organisation but morons I think fits it better though as I think its is out of sheer stupidity and a fear of the reality of the situation which has them flock to the pope.
Same people who want catholic church in our schools and in our hospitals even after everything they have seen and read.
Morons.
Quote from: Itchy on August 28, 2018, 07:02:40 PM
Try not to take it personally Iceman!
In my book the problem with a group that has a paedo ring in its midst and a history WORLDWIDE of covering it up is that there are people out there that empower it. So when the leader of this group comes to the country and a bunch of people flock to see him- well yes, for me they are moronic sheep. I could call them rape apologists, rape enablers, people who spit in the face of all the victime of this vile organisation but morons I think fits it better though as I think its is out of sheer stupidity and a fear of the reality of the situation which has them flock to the pope.
Same people who want catholic church in our schools and in our hospitals even after everything they have seen and read.
Morons.
You're reaching a bit far there to say people of faith who went to see the Pope are rape enablers and apologists. That's like the hair on a black man's left leg - it's not right and it's not fair.
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 08:23:29 PM
Quote from: Itchy on August 28, 2018, 07:02:40 PM
Try not to take it personally Iceman!
In my book the problem with a group that has a paedo ring in its midst and a history WORLDWIDE of covering it up is that there are people out there that empower it. So when the leader of this group comes to the country and a bunch of people flock to see him- well yes, for me they are moronic sheep. I could call them rape apologists, rape enablers, people who spit in the face of all the victime of this vile organisation but morons I think fits it better though as I think its is out of sheer stupidity and a fear of the reality of the situation which has them flock to the pope.
Same people who want catholic church in our schools and in our hospitals even after everything they have seen and read.
Morons.
You're reaching a bit far there to say people of faith who went to see the Pope are rape enablers and apologists. That's like the hair on a black man's left leg - it's not right and it's not fair.
Sorry, time to cut the bullshit. It's these fools who breath air into this organisation and who turn a blind eye to their crimes. Pope proved himself dishonest too. You can have faith, follow the bible and worship god without supporting child rapists, protectors and apologists.
Quote from: Itchy on August 28, 2018, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 08:23:29 PM
Quote from: Itchy on August 28, 2018, 07:02:40 PM
Try not to take it personally Iceman!
In my book the problem with a group that has a paedo ring in its midst and a history WORLDWIDE of covering it up is that there are people out there that empower it. So when the leader of this group comes to the country and a bunch of people flock to see him- well yes, for me they are moronic sheep. I could call them rape apologists, rape enablers, people who spit in the face of all the victime of this vile organisation but morons I think fits it better though as I think its is out of sheer stupidity and a fear of the reality of the situation which has them flock to the pope.
Same people who want catholic church in our schools and in our hospitals even after everything they have seen and read.
Morons.
You're reaching a bit far there to say people of faith who went to see the Pope are rape enablers and apologists. That's like the hair on a black man's left leg - it's not right and it's not fair.
Sorry, time to cut the bullshit. It's these fools who breath air into this organisation and who turn a blind eye to their crimes. Pope proved himself dishonest too. You can have faith, follow the bible and worship god without supporting child rapists, protectors and apologists.
You have no understanding then of Catholicism. What you describe is Protestantism. And it's not an either or statement. I don't support rapists protectors or apologists. I still go to Mass, I still receive the Eucharist. I still avail of the sacraments. I still believe there are good priests. I still believe the Catholic Church will get to where Jesus said it would. And I do all this with an informed and clear conscience. To whitewash everyone is wrong and you know it is.
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 09:03:44 PM
Quote from: Itchy on August 28, 2018, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on August 28, 2018, 08:23:29 PM
Quote from: Itchy on August 28, 2018, 07:02:40 PM
Try not to take it personally Iceman!
In my book the problem with a group that has a paedo ring in its midst and a history WORLDWIDE of covering it up is that there are people out there that empower it. So when the leader of this group comes to the country and a bunch of people flock to see him- well yes, for me they are moronic sheep. I could call them rape apologists, rape enablers, people who spit in the face of all the victime of this vile organisation but morons I think fits it better though as I think its is out of sheer stupidity and a fear of the reality of the situation which has them flock to the pope.
Same people who want catholic church in our schools and in our hospitals even after everything they have seen and read.
Morons.
You're reaching a bit far there to say people of faith who went to see the Pope are rape enablers and apologists. That's like the hair on a black man's left leg - it's not right and it's not fair.
Sorry, time to cut the bullshit. It's these fools who breath air into this organisation and who turn a blind eye to their crimes. Pope proved himself dishonest too. You can have faith, follow the bible and worship god without supporting child rapists, protectors and apologists.
You have no understanding then of Catholicism. What you describe is Protestantism. And it's not an either or statement. I don't support rapists protectors or apologists. I still go to Mass, I still receive the Eucharist. I still avail of the sacraments. I still believe there are good priests. I still believe the Catholic Church will get to where Jesus said it would. And I do all this with an informed and clear conscience. To whitewash everyone is wrong and you know it is.
Would you kiss the bishops ring or shake hands with a pope who knew of child abuse and did nothing? Who you allow such a man to preach to you at a mass? Only a fool would.
Any solutions Itchy?
Quote from: Aaron Boone on August 28, 2018, 10:18:45 PM
Any solutions Itchy?
Yeh - Colm O Gorman from Amnesty, an abuse survivor, said it well, open up the files and invite the media of the world to come and examine. Stop all government funding of the catholic church until it is done. Of course the problem is half the vatican will probably be incriminated as they knew full well what has gone on.
Fast track the removal of church from schools/hospitals.
Fund church by adding a % tax onto people who sign up to it like they do in Germany. However you only get the wedding/confirmation etc if you are signed up.
Arrest Bishops and charge for withholding information on serious crimes.
Arrest pope and interview next time he sets foot on Irish soil.
Make this man president...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4&t=46s
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/28/religion-ireland-catholicism-abusers
The pope has flown home after a roughing-up in Ireland. Just a few years ago it was unimaginable that a gay taoiseach would dare berate a visiting pontiff face-to-face about the "dark aspects" of Ireland's history and "brutal crimes perpetrated by people within the Catholic church
Leo Varadkar's magnificent assault eviscerated his country's past cultural capture by the church. "The failures of both church and state and wider society created a bitter and broken heritage for so many, leaving a legacy of pain and suffering," he said. "It is a history of sorrow and shame." The sorrow is not just for victims of monstrous priestly abuse, but the abuse of an entire society in thrall to clerical oppression: lives crimped, warped and blighted, no escape from the church's domination of everything. The best Irish literature breathes that pernicious incense.
Apology without radical action has left unassuaged the anger of Irish abuse victims. The church's doctrine in the confessional offers no forgiveness without a contrition that prevents future occasions of sin. But for as long as this church is perverted by warped dogma on sexuality, abuse will be rife and secretive. The fetishism of a celibate priesthood will attract abusers and paedophiles. Expect no real change while morbid obsession with sex, contraception and abortion still perpetuate St Paul's founding sexual disgust.
Who would expect Ireland to blaze the secular trail? The hard lesson it has learned from an overpowering church is one we should learn too. Wherever people are in the power of priests, imams and spiritual leaders, the state has a duty to inspect what's happening to the hidden-away children and women under their power. The Irish lesson is less respect for religion, and more instinctive suspicion.
Quote from: Itchy on August 28, 2018, 10:45:20 PM
Quote from: Aaron Boone on August 28, 2018, 10:18:45 PM
Any solutions Itchy?
Yeh - Colm O Gorman from Amnesty, an abuse survivor, said it well, open up the files and invite the media of the world to come and examine. Stop all government funding of the catholic church until it is done. Of course the problem is half the vatican will probably be incriminated as they knew full well what has gone on.
Fast track the removal of church from schools/hospitals.
Fund church by adding a % tax onto people who sign up to it like they do in Germany. However you only get the wedding/confirmation etc if you are signed up.
Arrest Bishops and charge for withholding information on serious crimes.
Arrest pope and interview next time he sets foot on Irish soil.
Make this man president...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4&t=46s
That video is hard to watch
Meanwhile
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/after-disappointment-of-popes-visit-i-want-taoiseach-to-let-me-name-my-abuser-says-survivor-37262460.html
I think the Church needs to be completely reformed root and branch, opened up to women priests and married priests as a start. If it was a business you'd close it down, sack the bad staff and open up under another name. It's not enough to say things are different now, the church is no longer a reflection of its people and whilst there are so many good men who have sacrificed their lives and human relationships and ministered faithfully, they have been betrayed by the abusers at all levels and the governments and bishops that protected them. It is no wonder attendances ar at an alltime low and that many who adhere to Catholic faith do so from home and not the pews. Action speaks louder than apologies, and there are way more of the latter than the former.
Abuse is incredibly expensive. One rapist can poison the work of hundreds of people.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/child-molester-surgeons-victims-to-be-spared-court-37258939.html
The so-called "Shine fund" was set up by agreement with the religious order when the hospital was purchased by the former North Eastern Health Board in 1997.
At the time, State authorities were aware of around 60 complaints against Shine and wanted to be indemnified by the Medical Missionaries of Mary against potential claims.
Under the agreement, some IR£1.6m of the IR£5.5m purchase price was set aside so the order could pay damages and costs arising from future claims.