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

[muppet]

I'm not suggesting that there isn't conflict between gospels.  Or that there aren't lots of conveniently ignored passages in the bible denouncing, e.g., loaning money for interest, or not obeying proper form when selling one's daughter.   So I'd agree with the general claim that interpretation is required if one is going to use the bible as some kind of moral guide.

But if the claim is that the bible doesn't say that you have to believe in Jesus to get into heaven, then that is clearly false.

If you mean literally, then obviously you are correct.

[T Fearon]

Muppet report it to whom? A gay couple are not part of any Church investigation?

[muppet]

Muppet report it to whom? A gay couple are not part of any Church investigation?

To your religious superiors.

What gives you the power to judge that a sin MIGHT be committed, and intervene on that basis, when Sean Brady confirmed that a grave sin actually had been committed, but he merely reported it to his superiors? Why must you actively attempt to block the sinners, while it is ok for him to simply pass on the news?

And stop hiding behind 'it was an investigation'. The Bible doesn't absolve people because they are part of an investigation. I won't even bother asking you to point out where it does.

If you feel you have to act instantly on the suspicion that there is a risk a sin might be committed, then Brady certainly had to act having confirmed that a sins were actively being committed. You can't have it both ways.

[T Fearon]

What are you on? Brady was asked to investigate allegations of historic abuse?

[muppet]

What are you on? Brady was asked to investigate allegations of historic abuse?

We know that.

But also know he didn't share to urgency to prevent sin that you apparently do. We know he was happy to merely pass on the news, while you, hypothetically at least, are inclined to jump straight and intervene straight away. You wouldn't even bother with an investigation.

[muppet]

What are you on? Brady was asked to investigate allegations of historic abuse?

We know that *.

But also know he didn't share to urgency to prevent sin that you apparently do. We know he was happy to merely pass on the news, while you, hypothetically at least, are inclined to jump straight and intervene straight away. You wouldn't even bother with an investigation.

* (except the 'historic' bit - that is re-writing history to suit your agenda - the abuse was current at the time not historic)

[T Fearon]

Still haven't a clue what you're on about,but Brady was investigating historic allegations of abuse perpetrated by one so called priest,he was not in  anyway providing sleeping facilities for that same priest and children,which is the only way Brady's case could be analogous to this.

[muppet]

Still haven't a clue what you're on about,but Brady was investigating historic allegations of abuse perpetrated by one so called priest,he was not in  anyway providing sleeping facilities for that same priest and children,which is the only way Brady's case could be analogous to this.

Fistly, you are bearing false witness again. This time particuarly heinously. It was not historic abuse at the time, he interviewed an abused boy who had just made a complaint. The issue was as current as it could get.

Secondly, all along you have said this is about sin. You claim you would have to intervene to stop the sin happening 'under your roof'. You insist that you are entitled to do so because of your religious beliefs. You care not for legalities nor consequences. It is sin as far as you are concerned and it is not happening on your turf, or your watch.

Now compare that attitude with that of Sean Brady. He didn't intervene, the sin in question continued horrifically for a decade and a half, but he is absolved. His religious beliefs aren't examined nor his conscience. He was ok because he merely passed news of the sin along the chain of command.

Your stance is the complete opposite of his. You are intervening without investigation or without even knowing for sure if it is a sin or not. Brady knew it was a sin. But that didn't matter. As you so often said, he simply did his job. Sin didn't come into it.

Amazingly you are wrong to support what Brady did and still wrong with the gay couple. Child abuse is beyond evil. There are victims and they are innocent children. Any remotely intellient and humane person would have intervened to protect children. There are no victims of a gay couple staying in your B&B, other than your need to offend.

[T Fearon]

Ffs? Brady did not facilitate sin (which anyone providing a bed for a gay couple would be doing) and he reported it to his superiors.Neither he could prevent sin nor could any B&B owner who refused to let a room to a gay couple,prevent sin,as presumably they would find a room elsewhere.

Yours is the most contrived argument I've ever seen,and wrong on all counts

[LCohen]

You can only discriminate wholly against a person,not partially.

You are just inventing these things. Nobody with a working knowledge of how the law works could possibly agree with you. Actually, nobody with a working knowledge of how a dictionary works could agree with you.

Your arguments are shameful

[muppet]

Ffs? Brady did not facilitate sin (which anyone providing a bed for a gay couple would be doing) and he reported it to his superiors.Neither he could prevent sin nor could any B&B owner who refused to let a room to a gay couple,prevent sin,as presumably they would find a room elsewhere.

Yours is the most contrived argument I've ever seen,and wrong on all counts

He did not intervene with Smyth, even though he had proof of sin. But he certainly did intervene with the victims when he got him to swear an oath of silence. He certainly could have have tried to prevent further sin by calling the Gárdaí. Or even telling the parents of the other children. When you think about it he could hardly have done less to stop the sin.

But the point your are missing, and I don't expect you to get, is that sin is merely a convenient argument for you. I raised Brady because I knew you would continue to argue for him, while ignoring the gigantic elephant in the room, i.e. sin. Sin doesn't come into it for Brady because if it did surely he had to try to stop it immediately. Just like you claim you have to. And saying they could get a room elsewhere is like saying Smyth could get a child elsewhere. Either you are against sin or not.

Brady wasn't concerned about sin. He was just doing his job for the Church. And you aren't concerned about sin either otherwise you would have to condemn that investigation for failing to nail Smyth for his sins. Instead you fully support Brady's (non) actions. You are also not bothered that the gay couple might 'sin' in the B&B down the road. A God that wants you to fight against 'sin' would be mighty impressed with you efforts there alright. Just as he would have been with Brady.

[Maguire01]

Ffs? Brady did not facilitate sin (which anyone providing a bed for a gay couple would be doing)

Yet you told me you'd sell a bed to a gay couple...

[LCohen]

Ffs? Brady did not facilitate sin (which anyone providing a bed for a gay couple would be doing)

Yet you told me you'd sell a bed to a gay couple...

Tony's deceits starting to catch up with him?

Catholics should be allowed to discriminate as they have to do so to prevent sin.
Sean Brady is a great lad.
Sean Brady did not report his evidence of serious wrong doing (that would certainly meet any definition of sin if you were in to that sort of thing) thereby allowing the "sin" to be repeated.

In Tony's world this all makes sense. But only in Tony's world.

[T Fearon]

Actually Brady did report unproven "allegations" of wrongdoing/sin to his superiors.No one can prevent sin.If I turn a gay couple away from my B&B then that's all I can do.I cannot stop a B&B owner down the road letting them have a room.However my conscience is clear.

Now there is far to many Romaphobes on this thread

[muppet]

Actually Brady did report unproven "allegations" of wrongdoing/sin to his superiors.No one can prevent sin.If I turn a gay couple away from my B&B then that's all I can do.I cannot stop a B&B owner down the road letting them have a room.However my conscience is clear.

Now there is far to many Romaphobes on this thread

Tony if there is one message that comes out of the New Testament, among all the contradictions and different ideologies and mantras, the one single consistent message that Jesus preached was 'Love thy neighbour'.

If by judging, embarrassing & turning away your neighbour, on the suspicion that they may commit something that might be a sin, but you don't really know if it is or not, or whether they will do it or not, you believe that your conscience is clear and better still, that you are the great follower of Christ in all this, while all others are Romaphobes, then you will fit right in with the DUP.

Clearly the above view resembles the Anti-Christ view we used to hear from Paisley.