New Catholic Church/ DUP coalition! Is this they way forward?

[haveaharp]

Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.

Contraception then... it didn't exist in the first Century yet it is sinful now??

The ancient romans used goats bladders for condoms.

[muppet]

Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.

Contraception then... it didn't exist in the first Century yet it is sinful now??

The ancient romans used goats bladders for condoms.

Grand, so using goats bladder is out.

Thankfully they didn't know about rubber in the 1st Century.

[easytiger95]

But you didn't say Jack the Ripper. You could have said it's like having a venture capitalist handle the church collection money. But you didn't. Very, very weak stuff Armaghniac. As I said before, at least Fearon owns up. And blaming the reader for making the connection after you wrote the statement is a trick as old as Nixon. Very weak.

I'd say that you are more familiar with Nixon's tricks than I.
You are  someone "who is not playing the man", and who then directly equates someone with a person who orders napalm dropped on people.

No I am someone who is comparing you with a right wing politician who wrote the book on how to use dog whistle politics to reinforce discrimination, and also pioneered the passive agressive "ju-jitsu" style of public discourse, by dangling provocative statements and coded signifiers, then feigning hurt innocence when people called him on it. You are someone who compared paedophillia with homosexuality, a comparison I find ojectionable and ignorant, to say the very least. Own your words Armaghniac, and take responsibility for them. Asking you to do that, and calling you out when you don't, is not "playing the man". It's a fair challenge in my book.

[armaghniac]

No I am someone who is comparing you with a right wing politician who wrote the book on how to use dog whistle politics to reinforce discrimination, and also pioneered the passive agressive "ju-jitsu" style of public discourse, by dangling provocative statements and coded signifiers, then feigning hurt innocence when people called him on it. You are someone who compared paedophillia with homosexuality, a comparison I find ojectionable and ignorant, to say the very least. Own your words Armaghniac, and take responsibility for them. Asking you to do that, and calling you out when you don't, is not "playing the man". It's a fair challenge in my book.

I gave a single simple example, I did not compare paedophillia with homosexuality nor did I compare traffic offences with homosexuality. From this single example, you are comparing me with a different people in America, a place I do not live and I certainly do not take my arguments from right wing Americans,  I am not familiar with them and have a low opinion of them.

Thankfully they didn't know about rubber in the 1st Century.

I don't think requiring consistency with the 1st Century is  a strong argument, but I am wary about providing any analogies.

[easytiger95]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.

You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.

The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.

Stop acting dumb Armagniac, it really doesn't suit you.

[easytiger95]

No I am someone who is comparing you with a right wing politician who wrote the book on how to use dog whistle politics to reinforce discrimination, and also pioneered the passive agressive "ju-jitsu" style of public discourse, by dangling provocative statements and coded signifiers, then feigning hurt innocence when people called him on it. You are someone who compared paedophillia with homosexuality, a comparison I find ojectionable and ignorant, to say the very least. Own your words Armaghniac, and take responsibility for them. Asking you to do that, and calling you out when you don't, is not "playing the man". It's a fair challenge in my book.

I gave a single simple example, I did not compare paedophillia with homosexuality nor did I compare traffic offences with homosexuality. From this single example, you are comparing me with a different people in America, a place I do not live and I certainly do not take my arguments from right wing Americans,  I am not familiar with them and have a low opinion of them.

Thankfully they didn't know about rubber in the 1st Century.

I don't think requiring consistency with the 1st Century is  a strong argument, but I am wary about providing any analogies.

You are using the arguments of the American right wing, quite clearly. If you have such a low opinion of them, stop using their tactics. Unfortunately for everyone on this island, Christians and secularists alike, these arguments and tactics are becoming far more prevalent.

[armaghniac]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.

You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.

The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.

I chose two extreme examples, to illustrate the point. This does not imply any direct connection between the example chosen, or its extremity, and the subject of the thread. This is a rhetorical device. Joe Brolly compared the situation of GAA club players to slavery and Aogán Ó Fearghail stated that this was an over the top comparison and it is open to you to make a similar observation without all the aggro.

[T Fearon]

As if this is not bad enough,Crossmaglen Rangers are advertising Yoga classes.The late Cardinal Tomas will be turning in his grave

[armaghniac]

As if this is not bad enough,Crossmaglen Rangers are advertising Yoga classes.The late Cardinal Tomas will be turning in his grave

maybe not turning in his grave, but doing a few stretches anyway.

[easytiger95]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.

You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.

The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.

I chose two extreme examples, to illustrate the point. This does not imply any direct connection between the example chosen, or its extremity, and the subject of the thread. This is a rhetorical device. Joe Brolly compared the situation of GAA club players to slavery and Aogán Ó Fearghail stated that this was an over the top comparison and it is open to you to make a similar observation without all the aggro.

It's not aggro, it's simply pointing out the gravity of the comparison

pointing out that the same comparison has been made, over and over again, by bigots to justify discrimination

pointing out that those self same bigots use similar arguments that any drawing of a parallel between the two examples indicates a flaw in the reader/listener than in the person who proposed the point

Rhetorical devices should be used with care. You come on here to argue a view, that I do not agree with, but you propose to do it, in the main, seriously. Which is why your comments are so disturbing.

If you are saying that what you said is over the top, than absolutely, I agree. Should you wish to withdraw your words, then feel free, and fair dues to you.

But given that you are using the Brolly/ Ó Fearghail episode as an example, it would indicate that you either do not understand the seriousness of your words or are purporting not to. Joe Brolly using an outlandish analogy to describe players of a game that they partake voluntarily in, with much enjoyment and reward, does not equate in gravity with comparing peoples valid sexuality (which they have no part in choosing) to a vile criminal act, which as a father, is completely abhorrent to me and every decent person (religious or secularist).

[LCohen]

LCohen sin is easily definable,they are actually written on tablets of stone.

So the 10 commandments are the definition of sin. That is a good start. It finaly clears up that homosexual acts are not a sin as they are not mentioned in the 10 commandments

I think you know fine well that the Bible (ie the Word of God as far as Christians are concerned) makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.

No wait you are not finding it so easy to define sin as you are now introducing other factors.

I have asked you and others time and time again for the biblical references to god's problem with homosexual acts. If the bible is full of such references you will have no difficulty in posting just one that you find convincing - please do so now. Others who made similar claims about "the word of god" pull their quotes from other texts and not the bible. So lets have your convincing quote from the bible?

Why therefore should Christians reasonably be expected (never mind be obliged) to permit this under their roofs,and for pecuniary gain into the bargain

Because your beliefs do not form the basis of the law. Your beliefs might influence how you vote and therefore ultimately the law but to do so you will have to enter meaningfully into the debate, have your views critiqued and crucially you will have to provide evidence to support your beliefs in order to convince reasonable and reasoning people to vote in line with yourself.

[armaghniac]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.

You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.

The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.

I chose two extreme examples, to illustrate the point. This does not imply any direct connection between the example chosen, or its extremity, and the subject of the thread. This is a rhetorical device. Joe Brolly compared the situation of GAA club players to slavery and Aogán Ó Fearghail stated that this was an over the top comparison and it is open to you to make a similar observation without all the aggro.

It's not aggro, it's simply pointing out the gravity of the comparison

pointing out that the same comparison has been made, over and over again, by bigots to justify discrimination

pointing out that those self same bigots use similar arguments that any drawing of a parallel between the two examples indicates a flaw in the reader/listener than in the person who proposed the point

Rhetorical devices should be used with care. You come on here to argue a view, that I do not agree with, but you propose to do it, in the main, seriously. Which is why your comments are so disturbing.

If you are saying that what you said is over the top, than absolutely, I agree. Should you wish to withdraw your words, then feel free, and fair dues to you.

But given that you are using the Brolly/ Ó Fearghail episode as an example, it would indicate that you either do not understand the seriousness of your words or are purporting not to. Joe Brolly using an outlandish analogy to describe players of a game that they partake voluntarily in, with much enjoyment and reward, does not equate in gravity with comparing peoples valid sexuality (which they have no part in choosing) to a vile criminal act, which as a father, is completely abhorrent to me and every decent person (religious or secularist).

Very well, my analogy was over the top and implied an inappropriate connection 
Let me revise it, just because you do not let a drunk driver drive the team bus, does not mean that you treat someone with a parking ticket or two the same way.

[LCohen]

Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.

So this sabbath that you keep - when does it start and when does it end?

Is all christian art sinful?

[Maguire01]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

Point of first statement - if someone wants to ban homosexuals from B'n'b they should also ban heterosexual couples for practices deemed sinful by the Church.

You then said that by that logic anyone who wanted to protect children from a paedophile, they should also ban people for having parking tickets.

The equivalence inferred is between the first clauses of the sentences - homosexuality is a grevious sin, paedophillia is a grevious sin, therefore people should not worry about smaller offences when trying to prevent the first examples.

I chose two extreme examples, to illustrate the point. This does not imply any direct connection between the example chosen, or its extremity, and the subject of the thread. This is a rhetorical device. Joe Brolly compared the situation of GAA club players to slavery and Aogán Ó Fearghail stated that this was an over the top comparison and it is open to you to make a similar observation without all the aggro.

It's not aggro, it's simply pointing out the gravity of the comparison

pointing out that the same comparison has been made, over and over again, by bigots to justify discrimination

pointing out that those self same bigots use similar arguments that any drawing of a parallel between the two examples indicates a flaw in the reader/listener than in the person who proposed the point

Rhetorical devices should be used with care. You come on here to argue a view, that I do not agree with, but you propose to do it, in the main, seriously. Which is why your comments are so disturbing.

If you are saying that what you said is over the top, than absolutely, I agree. Should you wish to withdraw your words, then feel free, and fair dues to you.

But given that you are using the Brolly/ Ó Fearghail episode as an example, it would indicate that you either do not understand the seriousness of your words or are purporting not to. Joe Brolly using an outlandish analogy to describe players of a game that they partake voluntarily in, with much enjoyment and reward, does not equate in gravity with comparing peoples valid sexuality (which they have no part in choosing) to a vile criminal act, which as a father, is completely abhorrent to me and every decent person (religious or secularist).

Very well, my analogy was over the top and implied an inappropriate connection 
Let me revise it, just because you do not let a drunk driver drive the team bus, does not mean that you treat someone with a parking ticket or two the same way.

So what a homosexual couple might do in a B&B is equated with a drunk driver, and what a heterosexual unmarried couple might do is equated with someone with a parking ticket? That makes things much better. 

[armaghniac]

So what a homosexual couple might do in a B&B is equated with a drunk driver, and what a heterosexual unmarried couple might do is equated with someone with a parking ticket? That makes things much better. 

Quite. The latter is sometimes referred as parking.