Messages

If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

If 'love' of God is motivated by fear, is that love worth anything? If a woman says she loves her husband only because she knows he'll physically harm her if she doesn't, what sort of love is that?

We're talking about semantics here I think?
A husband loves his wife so much he makes sure to treat her like a queen. A husband is afraid of hurting his wife so he always treats her like a queen.

Everything we do is done on the scale of fear or love. In some shape or form it boils down to either.

Pre-vatican II Catholicism was all about hell fire and brimstone. Post Vatican II Catholicism is more about love.
But there is room for both.

I love God and want to spend eternity in that love so I live my life in accordance.
(I love God and) I'm afraid to do anything that would seperate me from that eternity.

I think Tony leaves the love part out but it doesn't mean it isn't there?

Either God exists or He doesn't.

If He does then a lot of us are in trouble.
If He doesn't then none of this matters. We're all just worm food?

My belief isn't based on hedging my bets.
You're free to choose your own too.

With respect, I don't think it is semantics. Love is only love, imo, if it is freely given, without any hint of threat or duress. The God of the major religions demands that we love him and threatens to torment for all eternity those who refuse. You yourself say in your post that if God exists 'then a lot of us are in trouble'. Your God is a colossal, cosmic bully, one who trades on threat and intimidation.

I say I'm in trouble because I'm under no illusion that I lead the perfect life.
The church teaches God created everything. And we messed it up. And continued to mess it up until He made one last covenant with the blood and Death and Resurrection of His Son. He gave us the opportunity to again be with Him for all eternity. But let it be our choice.
If you end up in hell you can't blame God for being harsh. That's like the teenager complaining in their rooms for being grounded for smoking weed....

God doesn't want your fear - just your love. Your life will be a reflection of that Love. And the world would be a better place and eternity in Heaven is the promise.

We messed up? Surely if God created us, he's the one who messed up, since he created something capable of sin? What's more, even as he was in the act of creating us, he must've known that he was creating a sinful creature, since he's omniscient. And if he knew that he was creating a sinful creature, he also knew that he was creating many of us to burn in eternal hell fire, no? And if he knew that, why did he continue? Why create mankind when he must've known that many of his 'children' would end up in hell?

If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

If 'love' of God is motivated by fear, is that love worth anything? If a woman says she loves her husband only because she knows he'll physically harm her if she doesn't, what sort of love is that?

We're talking about semantics here I think?
A husband loves his wife so much he makes sure to treat her like a queen. A husband is afraid of hurting his wife so he always treats her like a queen.

Everything we do is done on the scale of fear or love. In some shape or form it boils down to either.

Pre-vatican II Catholicism was all about hell fire and brimstone. Post Vatican II Catholicism is more about love.
But there is room for both.

I love God and want to spend eternity in that love so I live my life in accordance.
(I love God and) I'm afraid to do anything that would seperate me from that eternity.

I think Tony leaves the love part out but it doesn't mean it isn't there?

Either God exists or He doesn't.

If He does then a lot of us are in trouble.
If He doesn't then none of this matters. We're all just worm food?

My belief isn't based on hedging my bets.
You're free to choose your own too.

With respect, I don't think it is semantics. Love is only love, imo, if it is freely given, without any hint of threat or duress. The God of the major religions demands that we love him and threatens to torment for all eternity those who refuse. You yourself say in your post that if God exists 'then a lot of us are in trouble'. Your God is a colossal, cosmic bully, one who trades on threat and intimidation.

If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

If 'love' of God is motivated by fear, is that love worth anything? If a woman says she loves her husband only because she knows he'll physically harm her if she doesn't, what sort of love is that?

Simply none of us know if it's true or not.Back in the day,the Church placed the emphasis on fear to save souls,nowadays it's the more compassionate approach.

If you believe and live a good clean life,you have no need to fear the afterlife.

I don't believe, I live a life which is ordinary, and I do not fear the afterlife (though being a coward, I sometimes worry about the manner of how I get there). Only religious people fear the afterlife, which is odd, as they're forever banging on about the joys of heaven and God's great mercy. 

There'll be some banter at the next Calcutta cup game.

O flower of Scotland
When will we see your like again
That fought and died for
Your wee bit hill and glen
And stood against him
Proud Edward's army
And sent him homeward
Tae think again

The hills are bare now
And autumn leaves lie thick and still
O'er land that is lost now
Which those so dearly held
And stood against him
Proud Edward's army
And sent him homeward
Tae think again

Those days are passed now
And in the past they must remain
But we can still rise now
And be the nation again
That stood against him
Proud Edward's army
And sent him homeward
Tae think again

why wouldnt any scottish yes voter sing this song after losing? When will they see another leader like salmond who got his party to the top and then got a referendum to choose there future and nearly won it. 6% isnt much to lose by in something this big. I wish we had someone here who cared enough about the country to actually try for it rather than taking a dig at each other nd carrying on with the nonsense. And they have definitely sent lilys army home to think again because there is no way the no campaign could win like that again and they have to try and win people over.

So the hills are bare now and they will be for a while but the want won't go away and those who dearly held it will speak again. Ireland had four home rule bills so why would scotland stop at one referendum? Sort out the shortfalls and then bring the arguements back to the table. There were a lot of undecided voters until the end so there are a lot of people who could be swayed and change the majority.

This referendum is passed now and in the past it must remain but they know how to win the next time where as lilys army have to think again about how to beat an idea that wont go away.

Fair play to scotland for even getting a vote for freedom and since it wasnt chosen it should be respected. But if the want is there again they should get votes until the want is gone. I wish I had the same chance for this place.

Yep, at least the Scots got the opportunity to cast a vote and have their democratic wishes respected. Ireland will never have that same chance, as the wishes of 20% of the population living in a handful of northern counties are given priority over the wishes of everyone else on the island. If Scotland had voted yes, but a majority in the Highlands and islands had voted to stay in the union, would they have been allowed to separate from the rest of Scotland? Not a chance. They'd have been told to respect the democratic decision and the integrity of the country as a unit would have been upheld. Only in Ireland are we expected to live with the injustice of a partitioned country and the perpetuation of a failed northern state founded and sustained against the will of a majority of people on the island.

I'm happy enough with a 'no' vote. It preserves our own economic recovery as well as stopping the scots steal new foreign investment /jobs through low corporation tax etc

That's a valid point. I think the Dublin govt wouldn't have welcomed the competition an independent Scotland would have provided.

I believe life without faith is meaningless,and would be gutted to think that after our last breath there is nothing.Naturally therefore I want my eternal existence to be pleasant

Therein lies the root of religion. People find it hard to accept that this life is all we may have, therefore they have to invent a belief system that promises pie in the sky when we die. God didn't create man in his image, quite the reverse. Man created God in his. Think about it: if the God of most of the major religions exists, he is responsible for creating and sustaining the cosmos and all life in it. He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (if that's a word), so far beyond our understanding that the gap between us and him is greater than between us and a single cell amoeba. Yet man has reduced him to a kind of headmaster figure, one who waits in the sky to punish those who commit such heinous crimes as refusing to believe in him or worship him at church on sundays. The Lord of the universe has become an uptight, spiteful wee man who sometimes answers prayers, sometimes doesn't, depending on the mood he's in. He has become the sort of indecisive wee man whose will can be changed if only we can get enough of the faithful to pray  or enough masses said. We have made him the kind of tyrant who punishes trangressors for all eternity, despite the fact that he must've known when he was creating us that he was setting us up to fail. He punishes us for all eternity for committing 'sin', even though sin is something that he himself has created. Sin didn't exist before God created life, remember, so if God created life he created sin too. And he must've known that sin would result from his creation, because he's omniscient. Yet he still blames us for his creation and punishes us for ever and ever and ever. Nice. Which is why I believe such a God doesn't exist, that he has been created by man in his own image.

Talk of the Yes campaign's vision of the future being full of uncertainties is a nonsense - it's the future we're talking about, stupid, of course there are going to be uncertainties. What about highlighting similar uncertainties in the No blueprint? I'm thinking of the fact that Scotland could find itself being dragged out of Europe in the very near future by UKIP, the Tory right wing and all their fellow travellers. How's that for uncertainty. The currency union and use of the pound was not an uncertainty. As Salmond pointed out, Scotland is the 2nd biggest market for the rest of the UK after the US. There is simply no way that, post referendum, the British govt would put tariff barriers or exchange rate worries in the way of its own businesses. Enlightened self interest would have prevailed. Likewise, Europe could not be seen to offer a carrot to Scotland before the referendum, as this would have been viewed as encouraging the breakup of the UK. Once the vote had been won, though, Scotland would have been ushered in as quickly as possible. It's a stable, wealthy country - why wouldn't Europe want it on board?

The Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth are two different things, though they're often confused.

Can we not show a bit of class and let him be Mourned by those that want to .
there are plenty of times to pass judgement but not the day on which he passed on

It's well seeing you didn't grow up in the North in the 70's and 80 - the b**tard should have been killed years ago.

I did and I agree with Rosnarun.

I'm a blow in - 5 right.

Interesting the players that have left celtic for  England in the last 12 months,Hooper,Wanyama hardly set the world alight,Ledley doing ok at Palace and Forster will be good for Southampton,but no world beaters and Celtic probably got over the odds for every one of them

Hooper scored 6 goals in a struggling norwich side, so he's not doing too badly. Transfer rumours linking him to QPR and Palace.

Not to mention an insult to Islamb.

[I've little interest in GAA,]

Definition of famous on this thread is a bit too wide, imo. To qualify as famous, Shirley, a sports person has to be recognisable beyond the boundaries of those who are interested in his / her sport. For example, George Best, Roy Keane, Martin O'Neill, Brian O'Driscoll, Ronan O'Gara, Sonia O'Sullivan are people whose name and face would be known to many who have little interest in football, rugby, athletics or whatever. I've little interest in GAA, so alot of the names of 'famous' people I'm reading on here mean nothing to me. May as well claim that you've met someone from Big Brother 6. Just saying, like.

This site must be useful for you then.

I'm on the non gaa discussion part of the forum - there's a clue there - which I find enjoyable rather than useful.  The political & religious debates and the humour are worth looking in for. JOG - no particular reason why I'm not keen on GAA, I just prefer rugby and soccer. I never liked hurling, I enjoyed playing gaelic football at school, but I was always a soccer player first and foremost. I always took an interest in the international rugby games, but since I got too old to play any sport, I've found that I've enjoyed watching rugby more and more. I'm now at the stage where I prefer watching rugby to soccer and I wouldn't miss an Ulster match at Ravenhill. Drink probably plays a part in that too. 

It's the none Gaa section of a GAA website. I just would have thought most people on this website would have an interest in GAA primarily. If not, would you not be better going to the likes of politics.ie. where some of the primary content is political and religious debate. Not that I'm chasing you or anything. I just find it strange that someone would go to a niche website just to get their general section.
But given it's a GAA website, can you not understand how the definition of famous would include GAA stars, given the posters interests.

The only discussion you get on a politics website is politics, naturally enough, and people can take themselves and their subject a bit too seriously. On a site like this one, you can get political debates, debates on other current affairs matters, discussions about religious matters, plus discussions about other sports. There's also discussions about absolutely nothing at all if you look closely enough  .

I understand why GAA people would figure on this thread, but I think there has to be a spill over into the wider world if someone is to be classed as 'famous'. So, as a non GAA fan, I can say that I would recognise people like Joe Brolly, Jarlath Burns, Brian McEniff and Pat Spillane, but that's because they all have a profile away from the pitch.

[I've little interest in GAA,]

Definition of famous on this thread is a bit too wide, imo. To qualify as famous, Shirley, a sports person has to be recognisable beyond the boundaries of those who are interested in his / her sport. For example, George Best, Roy Keane, Martin O'Neill, Brian O'Driscoll, Ronan O'Gara, Sonia O'Sullivan are people whose name and face would be known to many who have little interest in football, rugby, athletics or whatever. I've little interest in GAA, so alot of the names of 'famous' people I'm reading on here mean nothing to me. May as well claim that you've met someone from Big Brother 6. Just saying, like.

This site must be useful for you then.

I'm on the non gaa discussion part of the forum - there's a clue there - which I find enjoyable rather than useful.  The political & religious debates and the humour are worth looking in for. JOG - no particular reason why I'm not keen on GAA, I just prefer rugby and soccer. I never liked hurling, I enjoyed playing gaelic football at school, but I was always a soccer player first and foremost. I always took an interest in the international rugby games, but since I got too old to play any sport, I've found that I've enjoyed watching rugby more and more. I'm now at the stage where I prefer watching rugby to soccer and I wouldn't miss an Ulster match at Ravenhill. Drink probably plays a part in that too.