Generally Strange

Dades

Noob.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Noob.

Whatever! I always preferred Rob anyway.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Three years since the last update of 'Generally Strange'????

Merge it with The Hazards of Belief (funny, weird) or The Funny Side of Religion (funny, haha)?

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Merge it with The Hazards of Belief (funny, weird) or The Funny Side of Religion (funny, haha)?

I dunno it's not exclusively funny or hazardous... just odd!

Jimoslimos

Galvasean wrote: »

Three years since the last update of 'Generally Strange'????

The Pope's Crocodile

"The Pope seemed fascinated by the reptile and even touched it.

Rome zoo organised a lavish send-off for the animal, attended by children waving Vatican, Cuban, and Italian flags.

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says the reptile left the zoo in style, in a wooden box placed inside a black limousine."

Don't know about anyone else, but this was the first image to spring to mind

Galvasean

Fine Gael TD reckons fornication is the main cause of pregnancies and that solutions should be found 'for the weak'

http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/fine-gael-td-fornication-the-main-cause-of-unwanted-pregnancies/

Morgase

Galvasean wrote: »

Fine Gael TD reckons fornication is the main cause of pregnancies and that solutions should be found 'for the weak'

http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/fine-gael-td-fornication-the-main-cause-of-unwanted-pregnancies/

I just listened to that link and am in disbelief at that public representative, with all her talk of sin.

Sarky

She has that creepy spaced-out look you see in the Westboro Baptist folks.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Fine Gael TD reckons fornication is the main cause of pregnancies [...]

Immaculate conceptions aside, I'd have said it was the only cause?

joseph brand

Sarky wrote: »

She has that creepy spaced-out look you see in the Westboro Baptist folks.

She looks like her name used to be Michael Mulherin.

Hotblack Desiato

Remember a while back, people were saying that such-and-such was a sign of how we're going back to the bad old 80's?

Didn't reckon on Alice Glenn being reincarnated though :eek:











and yer wan is a year younger than I am :eek: :eek: :eek:

Hotblack Desiato

I think we should just build a wall around Mayo, and be done with it.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Fine Gael TD reckons fornication is the main cause of pregnancies

Not sure her latest comments constitute a clarification:

Michelle Mulherin wrote:

Take religion out of it, okay? Is there a point at which, from the point of view of practical living, the mental health and wellbeing of people, that the ought not practice safe sex? That perhaps in some instances people should be abstaining from casual sexual intercourse? Forget about the word: this is about opening a debate about modern responsible living in Ireland, us being responsible people for ourselves. [...] The flip [side] to getting rid of religiosity isn’t promiscuity, but an awful lot of people’s attitudes to sexuality are actually very primitive, and basic, and very in the shadows, [...] So if people are being driven in a certain direction, and you say, towards sexual intercourse, towards pleasure, towards whatever it is… is there something darker here? Is there something harmful that is happening to some people here, because they’re not practising safe sex, because they’re not abstaining? Perhaps, in some instances, people are having sex too young? Why can’t we talk about that, and why does it have to sound nerdy, or particularly religious? [...] We are holistic beings, and that includes taking in that aspect of ourselves.

Improbable

The only reason some "people’s attitudes to sexuality are actually very primitive, and basic, and very in the shadows" is because the church has put it there. Instead of trying to fix it with another religiously driven idea, how about we stop treating sex as if it's some terrible sin and instead, educate people?

zico10

Galvasean wrote: »

Fine Gael TD reckons fornication is the main cause of pregnancies and that solutions should be found 'for the weak'

http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/fine-gael-td-fornication-the-main-cause-of-unwanted-pregnancies/

robindch wrote: »

Immaculate conceptions aside, I'd have said it was the only cause?

Just to be pedantic, as I'm sure the lady in question was as well.
By using the word fornication she is talking about unplanned pregnancies following consensual sex, as opposed to pregnancies resulting from rape.

Not that I agree with her, but her implication is that bringing rape into the debate on abortion is a red herring.

As an aside, the 'Immaculate Conception', at least the one involving Mary and the archangel Gabriel, was in fact consensual. So except for no documented account of sexual intercourse taking place, I guess that could technically still be considered fornication.

zico10

Improbable wrote: »

The only reason some "people’s attitudes to sexuality are actually very primitive, and basic, and very in the shadows" is because the church has put it there. Instead of trying to fix it with another religiously driven idea, how about we stop treating sex as if it's some terrible sin and instead, educate people?

Reading through this, I was certain the final two were going to be enjoy it. I had to read it twice just to be sure they weren't.

Barr125

zico10 wrote: »

Reading through this, I was certain the final two were going to be enjoy it. I had to read it twice just to be sure they weren't.

Why not both?

humanji

robindch wrote: »

Immaculate conceptions aside, I'd have said it was the only cause?

There's a huge amount of unwanted pregnancies due to artificial insemination.

Doctor DooM

[QUOTE=Michelle Mulherin
]Sound nerdy[/QUOTE]

Alright, she's attacking the nerds, now I'm really annoyed

kylith

zico10 wrote: »

As an aside, the 'Immaculate Conception', at least the one involving Mary and the archangel Gabriel, was in fact consensual. So except for no documented account of sexual intercourse taking place, I guess that could technically still be considered fornication.

The immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary herself, so that probably was consentual.

IIRC the fact she was having a baby was presented to Mary as a fait accompli, I don't recall ever hearing that the holy spirit ask her if she was willing to have a baby, she was just told 'You're knocked up by God' and she claimed to be happy about it. Whether she was or not we'll never know, but either way she didn't seem to have a choice in the matter.

zico10

Barr125 wrote: »

Why not both?

Ignorance is bliss!

zico10

kylith wrote: »

The immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary herself, so that probably was consentual.

IIRC the fact she was having a baby was presented to Mary as a fait accompli, I don't recall ever hearing that the holy spirit ask her if she was willing to have a baby, she was just told 'You're knocked up by God' and she claimed to be happy about it. Whether she was or not we'll never know, but either way she didn't seem to have a choice in the matter.

"Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus", just like the chat up line "Get you coat", it doesn't require a response.


But how and ever, Mary's own words from 'The Angelus';

"Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it done unto me according to Thy word."

I don't know what scripture says on the matter, and I think she had already conceived before uttering these words, but I'd take it from this statement she was happy enough about the whole affair. In this instance even the best prosecutor in the world would be hard pressed to secure a successful conviction.

kylith

zico10 wrote: »

"Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus", just like the chat up line "Get you coat", it doesn't require a response.


But how and ever, Mary's own words from 'The Angelus';

"Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it done unto me according to Thy word."

I don't know what scripture says on the matter, and I think she had already conceived before uttering these words, but I'd take it from this statement she was happy enough about the whole affair. In this instance even the best prosecutor in the world would be hard pressed to secure a successful conviction.

"Be it done unto me according to thy word" is something that would be said by someone who knows they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of whether or not she claimed to be happy about it after the fact she was still impregnanted without her consent. Consent after the fact means nothing.

TBH, I'd even be dubious of her claim to be happy. I'm sure she loved her son, but he was conceived under duress. Mary would have been well aware of God's penchant for smiting people who displeased him, so she was hardly going to complain about him forcing a pregnancy on her in case he took out his displeasure on her, and anyone else in lightening-bolt range.

No court would rule that a woman who was told she was going to have his baby by a person who had a history of violence, and not just violence, but the kind of indiscriminate slaughter that mob bosses strive toward, wasn't at the very least coerced. There may not have been an actual sex act, but her body was still violated without so much as a 'by your leave'.

It's the equivelant of a man with a history of GBH holding down a woman with Stockholm Syndrome and inseminating her with a syringe. She might claim she's delighted, but she knew she'd have gotten a beating if she'd tried to stop him.

zico10

kylith wrote: »

"Be it done unto me according to thy word" is something that would be said by someone who knows they don't have a choice in the matter.

I can't put myself in Mary's shoes, but I doubt I'd be saying this in a similar situation.

kylith wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not she claimed to be happy about it after the fact she was still impregnanted without her consent. Consent after the fact means nothing.

I accept that, but the Catholic Church might have something different to say on the matter.

kylith wrote: »

TBH, I'd even be dubious of her claim to be happy. I'm sure she loved her son, but he was conceived under duress. Mary would have been well aware of God's penchant for smiting people who displeased him, so she was hardly going to complain about him forcing a pregnancy on her in case he took out his displeasure on her, and anyone else in lightening-bolt range.

No court would rule that a woman who was told she was going to have his baby by a person who had a history of violence, and not just violence, but the kind of indiscriminate slaughter that mob bosses strive toward, wasn't at the very least coerced. There may not have been an actual sex act, but her body was still violated without so much as a 'by your leave'.

It's the equivelant of a man with a history of GBH holding down a woman with Stockholm Syndrome and inseminating her with a syringe. She might claim she's delighted, but she knew she'd have gotten a beating if she'd tried to stop him.

You certainly make a persuasive argument, but I don't think either of us are posting under the assumption that these events actually happened.
In view of that, all we have to go on is a story put to us by Christian sources. I have yet to hear an account of the incarnation where Mary was unhappy to be bearing the son of God. I'm not sure about other types of Christians, but the Catholic Church at least teaches that Mary was conceived without sin, and it wouldn't even for one millisecond have entered her mind to disobey God, or that something he was doing might in someway be a violation of her.

kylith

zico10 wrote: »

I can't put myself in Mary's shoes, but I doubt I'd be saying this in a similar situation.




I accept that, but the Catholic Church might have something different to say on the matter.




You certainly make a persuasive argument, but I don't think either of us are posting under the assumption that these events actually happened.
In view of that, all we have to go on is a story put to us by Christian sources. I have yet to hear an account of the incarnation where Mary was unhappy to be bearing the son of God. I'm not sure about other types of Christians, but the Catholic Church at least teaches that Mary was conceived without sin, and it wouldn't even for one millisecond have entered her mind to disobey God, or that something he was doing might in someway be a violation of her.

Oh, certainly the bolded bit! I just enjoy a good argument

Continuing on: the whole 'wouldn't even think of disobeying God' bit would smack of brainwashing to me.

There you go; the entirety of Christianity is based on a brainwashed teenager with Stockholm Syndrome being forcibly artificially inseminated by a thug with a list of violent offenses so long that it took the entire OT to catalog it.

Improbable

Also, let's not forget that at the time of the conception, we're still talking about a Christian god who is petty, vindictive and basically a dick. This is not the "meek" god of the new testament.

kylith

Improbable wrote: »

Also, let's not forget that at the time of the conception, we're still talking about a Christian god who is petty, vindictive and basically a dick. This is not the "meek" god of the new testament.

Well, having a kid obviously mellowed him.

darjeeling

Not knowing where else to post this, I've dug up the Generally Strange thread (zombie threads for the End of Days!).

Anyone else get one of these fantastic evolution-busting DVDs through the letterbox, or am I the only lucky one around this parish? If you didn't get one and feel like you're missing out, PM me and you can have mine!

magicbastarder

nothing to do with religion whatsoever, but is it not generally strange that the ad currently running on TV for mcdonalds - to promote their burgers, and the fact that the meat is all locally sourced; featuring a farmer walking around his farm and being all 'look at me, i'm a sensitive farmer who takes pride in a job well done' - manages not to feature even a single cow. on an ad which is filmed on a farm which produces beef.

lynski

darjeeling wrote: »

Not knowing where else to post this, I've dug up the Generally Strange thread (zombie threads for the End of Days!).

Anyone else get one of these fantastic evolution-busting DVDs through the letterbox, or am I the only lucky one around this parish? If you didn't get one and feel like you're missing out, PM me and you can have mine!

wow who sends you those?

magicbastarder

darjeeling wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BptQHAW2T5M#t=2m45s

darjeeling

lynski wrote: »

wow who sends you those?

I don't know, but I found the latest Alive! on the doormat on Tuesday, then this the next day. It must be a sign.

The DVD is predictably crazy stuff: young earth creationism meets ultra-Catholicism (Padre Pio, the Turin Shroud, living communion wafers, immaculately preserved saints and the secrets of Fatima), given a vehemently anti-Papal twist and served up with a Father Ted aesthetic.



The crowd behind the DVD are an odd USA-based Catholic splinter group, accused by some of anti-semitism. Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Holy_Family_Monastery. I've no idea why their propaganda is showing up in Dublin.

Hotblack Desiato

Somebody is either having a laugh or you are being targeted for 'advanced witnessing techniques' by a neighbour who is deeply concerned for your immortal soul. That tiny bunch are all but unknown in the US, they are hardly going to try to crack the competitive religion marketplace here. Is the DVD Region 1..?

robindch

Scofflaw wrote: »

Interestingly, there are a lot of examples of such students in Jack Chick's tracts, but there the 'evilutionist' is invariably dumbfounded or furious. I think JC may see himself as the hero of such a comic strip.

Crucifix wrote: »

These are the kind of thing that might have been posted before but as anyone seen the Chick tracts?
Here is a fine example of one of these religious comics drawn by Jack Chick. They are absolutely beautiful.

On Sunday evening last, it [url=was announced that fundamentalist firebrand, cloud-waver and cartoonist Jack Chick had drawn breath for the final time.

There will never be another Chick Tract and for a lot of people, that's probably a good thing. Here's the NCSE on Chick:

https://ncse.com/news/2016/10/jack-t-chick-dies-0018396

Hotblack Desiato

Someone at Boards HQ has decided that A&A and the non-christian religious forum should be under the sign of the cross.



Don't know how long this has been like that, as I never use the "responsive" :rolleyes: site, but got directed onto it on my phone earlier today.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Someone at Boards HQ has decided that A&A and the non-christian religious forum should be under the sign of the cross.

Don't know how long this has been like that, as I never use the "responsive" :rolleyes: site, but got directed onto it on my phone earlier today.

Probably a conspiracy with the Catholic Church to indoctrinate people... so nothing new

recedite

Presumably there is only one icon for all "Religion and Spirituality" topics?
In that case, a church with a cross on it seems fair enough, given that its an Irish based website.

Peregrinus

Well, some kind of composite icon, pointing to a diversity of religious/spiritual positions, might be better.

Is there, though, though, a handy ideogram, analogous to the cross or the crescent or the star of David, that suggests atheism/agnosticism/unbelief?

Absolam

Apparently this is a commonly used symbol for atheism, though I've never actually seen it being used anywhere...

Peregrinus

What! You mean the Nuclear Energy Board was actually an atheist conspiracy?

More seriously, I've never seen a symbol like that used to suggest atheism or unbelief; it fairly obviously suggests something connected to atomic physics or the like. That's not to say that nobody has ever used it to symbolize atheism, but in the context of an ideogram for boards.ie, an atheist symbol is no use unless boardies who see it will routinely think "Ah! Atheism!", rather than "Huh? Atomic physics?"

So, yeah, I share what I suspect is Hotblack's sense that the ideogram currently used tends to marginalise or eclipse atheism (again!). But I don't know that this is a problem that's easily solved until there's a symbolic representation of atheism or unbelief that has the same brand awareness, so to speak, as the cross or the crescent or the star of David.

Absolam

I'd agree, I've never seen it and I wouldn't think it's well known here, but it's been the symbol of the American Atheists organisation for over 50 years apparently. Since, unlike religions, atheism and agnosticism aren't organisations, it's hard to imagine there will ever be enough unified momentum to establish a symbol that is universally recognisable though.

ShooterSF

Surely...

Peregrinus

What, the pudding-bowl haircut is a symbol of atheism?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Presumably there is only one icon for all "Religion and Spirituality" topics?
In that case, a church with a cross on it seems fair enough, given that its an Irish based website.

I disagree - don't we have enough christian triumphalism in this country already? such as the vandalism of our natural beauty spots by putting shagging crosses on the hilltops

Atheists and members of many non-christian faiths have been persecuted and murdered in the name of that symbol. If we had a judaism forum would we put a swastika on it?