Vincent Browne's Challenging God

IT-Guy

Dave! wrote: »

Yeah it's excruciating. Very frustrating hearing the disingenuousness of these people. I've switched it off. 'Clinton' is on RTE. Great docco.

Watching this while waiting for vanilla sky to start on 4. Have to say the priest is doing his best at a sales pitch for the church, lots of word salad and repetition. When he started to talk how JC would have behaved or acted I got annoyed, how the hell can they say how he would have acted? Was cringing at the language he used in relation to sex and how we're physiologically made to "fit together in a loving union" as if that has any bearing on sexuality. Church yet again completely at odds with the modern world. Always irks me how these priests who took a vow of celibacy can hope to have any knowledge of an active and healthy sex life and assume they know better than those that do. Getting grumpy now, need more beer

fergalr

I would guess that anyone here who criticised last week's atheist guest was regretting their words, and wishing there was someone similar on this week to give a similar challenge.

I don't think I'll be watching another episode.

(Hopefully this post doesn't break any laws. There's nothing quite like the mention of libel to chill a discussion.)

tommy2bad

Ended better than it began, if this keeps up it might be worth watching for the content rather than the style.
Poor enough effort by the priest, good effort by the nun but she still didn't explain why if she found it all so unfair she didn't throw her habit at it. The editor kept his gob shut most of the time but when he did say something he had some interesting things to add.
Again the title topic got lost in Vincents constant haranguing of the guests.
I still don't know why they are sticking with a church even they admitted was guilty of all it was accused off.

Brian Shanahan

tommy2bad wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2385958/Religion-disappear-2041-people-replaced-God-possessions-claims-leading-psychologist.html
I know it the Mail but the idea is somewhat appealing. Religion being replaced with consumerism.
Not sure if intelligence has anything to do with it though.

This is only a recycling of that old religious scaremongering that if you leave out god the devil* flows in.

*Consumerism or materialism, to give its alternative name, being the modern religious code for eeeeeebil.

tommy2bad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

This is only a recycling of that old religious scaremongering that if you leave out god the devil* flows in.

*Consumerism or materialism, to give its alternative name, being the modern religious code for eeeeeebil.

It might be a variation of that argument but I think it offers more. Theirs the idea that humans respond to things in a predefined way whether its religion, consumerism or nationalism. We seem to need an ism to define our world view and give a structure to our lives. I duno, dump religion and take up consumerism (not the same as materialism btw) are we just swapping one form of soma for another?

Sarky

Notbeingadickandimposingmyviewsonothersism might work. Maybe the religious folks could try that?

Dave!

FYI - John Waters *and* Eamon Dunphy are allegedly on Vincent Browne's show tonight! Vincent is still on holidays, so someone else is hosting it. Should be eh, interesting at least!

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

FYI - John Waters *and* Eamon Dunphy are allegedly on Vincent Browne's show tonight! Vincent is still on holidays, so someone else is hosting it. Should be eh, interesting at least!

Not sure if "interesting" is a word I'd apply to something that Witters and Dumbfy are on. Still, I suppose they're cheap.

If only the TV3 budget could stretch a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8

Lapin

Why is VB referring to God as "she" ?

tommy2bad

Lapin wrote: »

Why is VB referring to God as "she" ?

Why not?
Is this still on,I'd forgotten all about it, is it any good tonight?

Lapin

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why not?

Just seems a bit pretentious. Especially as they are discussing the literal use of language in the bible. A book that refers to God as a Father.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Is this still on,I'd forgotten all about it, is it any good tonight?

Tame enough. Not as raucous as the first episode 2 weeks ago. (I missed last week's).

The two clerics - One jewish, one catholic - are doing their best to tell us not to take the words of the bible literally but not very convincingly.

Carol Hunt is the atheist guest but hasn't said much.

She doesn't need to.

Prodigious

Fcuking idiot spent 5 minutes asking why God didn't intervene for the Jews in the holocaust when they said the Our Father...

tommy2bad

Prodigious wrote: »

Fcuking idiot spent 5 minutes asking why God didn't intervene for the Jews in the holocaust when they said the Our Father...

He didn't did he? I know what he meant but to make a mistake like that is a bit silly.
Come to think of it do Jews use the out father? it's not got anything that would make it non kosher iykwim, I think I heard it said in Hebrew once, can't be certain of that but theirs so many strands of Jewdasm that it's possible some do say the our father. Jews for Jesus maybe?
Well what do you know! look what google threw up!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3__N2xnhKu8

Prodigious

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/848875/jewish/Is-the-Lords-Prayer-Non-denominational.htm

tommy2bad

Prodigious wrote: »

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/848875/jewish/Is-the-Lords-Prayer-Non-denominational.htm

Yeah sounds right. Thanks for that.

sbsquarepants

Lapin wrote: »

Tame enough. Not as raucous as the first episode 2 weeks ago. (I missed last week's).

I turned it off - i've given up on it in fact, you shouldn't have to try force yourself to endure a tv show. It's unwatchable shíte!

Lapin wrote: »

Carol Hunt is the atheist guest but hasn't said much.

I defo would

loobylou

Last night was the first time I watched it. Actually felt embarassed for the priest, he seemed completely out of his depth. At one stage he was left saying that the god of the bible was not the god of the bible.
Wonder does he still have a job this morning?

Jimmy444

loobylou wrote: »

Last night was the first time I watched it. Actually felt embarassed for the priest, he seemed completely out of his depth. At one stage he was left saying that the god of the bible was not the god of the bible.
Wonder does he still have a job this morning?

I suspect he may be receiving a memo shortly from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.*


* formerly known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition:eek: - Wikipedia

robindch

loobylou wrote: »

Wonder does he still have a job this morning?

No doubt moved to another parish.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

No doubt moved to another parish.

Yep, say that'll be it alright. Sure its a fool proof way of solving all problems....apparently.

Sarky

robindch wrote: »

No doubt moved to another parish.

It does seem to be the first choice for priests who embarrass the church.

green_bow

always annoys me when religious folk pull out the " free will " canard when rationalising god,s lack of action during the likes of the holocaust , the priest on the panel last night was at it

only perpetrators have free will , victims have none when being pushed into a chamber

Cabaal

green_bow wrote: »

always annoys me when religious folk pull out the " free will " canard when rationalising god,s lack of action during the likes of the holocaust , the priest on the panel last night was at it

only perpetrators have free will , victims have none when being pushed into a chamber

But isn't it fun the way if somebody dies and they were for example very young, then they always use the justification that it was "gods will" to take them, or some other such thing.

So he can make people die when young but not stop either the catholic church killing innocent people on the basis of being witches and the Nazi's kill people because they just didn't like their faith, race etc

green_bow

Cabaal wrote: »

But isn't it fun the way if somebody dies and they were for example very young, then they always use the justification that it was "gods will" to take them, or some other such thing.

So he can make people die when young but not stop either the catholic church killing innocent people on the basis of being witches and the Nazi's kill people because they just didn't like their faith, race etc

that's irritating too but the " free will " card is gratuitously offensive when applied to instances where victims had no choice what fate they faced

if a fireman stood by while kids were trapped in a burning building , would we trot out the free will argument , god re_ the hollocause re_ doing nothing is essentially the same thing

btw , my reading of things is not nesscesserily tied in with atheism , it just seems logical to me that if someone has the power to do something yet doesn't , its pretty odd to view them as benign

robindch

green_bow wrote: »

[...] my reading of things is not nesscesserily tied in with atheism , it just seems logical to me that if someone has the power to do something yet doesn't , its pretty odd to view them as benign

You're not the first to notice this rather glaring hole in theodicy:

Epicurus wrote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

tommy2bad

Well when you sell God as superman you have to have some way to explain the failings, no one is buying the supervillan thing anymore so sulkfest seems to be the new explanation.
I wonder if it's the concept of God that needs fixing rather than the explanations as to why omnipotence is so impotent.

TempPeck

I likes Vincents point where he said the priest ended his readings with "This is the word of God".
After how much the priest distanced himself from the bible being literal this really should be removed from his sermons.
I thought Vincent should have laid into him about this. It was the best opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy.

Also, OK so it appears that the religious people have finally agreed that the bible is "made up" .. but .. I bet they STILL teach children the stories of Noah, Christmas, bread & fish etc. They don't start Sunday school with a disclaimer!

Cabaal

TempPeck wrote: »

They don't start Sunday school with a disclaimer!

There's a sunday school in ireland?

If only the religious teachings were limited to that,

Jan T.

Better than the first two, but still a long way to go. At least the Jewish guy actually knew his own religion unlike the Priest.

Dave!

On the real Vincent Browne show tonight, they're talking about separation of church and state


like... NOW!!

Turtwig

Boards has no 'like' button. Thank God!

Dave!

I meant it this way...

Vincent Browne blah blah on tv talking about separation of c & s

... as in, NOW!!

Lapin

There is some rubbish being spoken here tonight.

TheChizler

"Blatherdome": worth it for Vincent's outbursts.

ravendude

Woeful exhibition of waffle tonight and sadly little in the way of any meaningful challenge to the nonsense.

joseph brand

VB: "What does it mean to have a relationship with god?"
Theist no.1: "We feel a unity with the holy spirit."
VB: "What?"
Theist no.2: "Perhaps I can explain". "We experience his love for us".
VB: "How?"
Theist no.3: "Through the sacraments we acknowledge his intergalactic oneness".
VB: "Dafuq are yous talking about?" "What's going on?"

Cabaal

joseph brand wrote: »

VB: "What does it mean to have a relationship with god?"
Theist no.1: "We feel a unity with the holy spirit."
VB: "What?"
Theist no.2: "Perhaps I can explain". "We experience his love for us".
VB: "How?"
Theist no.3: "Through the sacraments we acknowledge his intergalactic oneness".
VB: "Dafuq are yous talking about?" "What's going on?"

VB had a point, it is nonsense and makes no sense :pac:

Dave!

Please tell me the term "intergalactic oneness" was not used! Are you joshin' ?

joseph brand

Dave! wrote: »

Please tell me the term "intergalactic oneness" was not used! Are you joshin' ?

I may have taken my inspiration from Ace Ventura.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llDTurQxPgQ

expectationlost

Priests slam religious show as vehicle for Browne attack http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/priests-slam-religious-show-as-vehicle-for-browne-attack-241352.html

Fr Brendan Hoban said

“In the first programme, Browne accused [renowned theologian James Mackey] of being ‘a condescending twit’. You really couldn’t make this up. Mackey has studied religion all his life; he knows the ins and outs of his subject; he has written and lectured widely.”

i think I've heard this priest drip in praise for this guy before, he just has no concept that there are people who just don't buy into it, and he expects everyone to do so and discuss it on his terms as if its real. (or that pretending that its real is useful)

it was called challenging god not indulging it

Obliq

"ACP founder Fr Brendan Hoban likened Mr Browne to “a janitor in Beaumont Hospital explaining to a panel of brain surgeons they were off the mark”. "

Oh dear! That remark is the kind of thing VB would say, isn't it?! And not condescending AT ALL :rolleyes:

Cabaal

Obliq wrote: »

"ACP founder Fr Brendan Hoban likened Mr Browne to “a janitor in Beaumont Hospital explaining to a panel of brain surgeons they were off the mark”. "

Oh dear! That remark is the kind of thing VB would say, isn't it?! And not condescending AT ALL :rolleyes:

Don't they think alot of themselves....brain surgeons eh?
:rolleyes:

I would have thought a more accurate example is:

"Its like a human being lecturing another human who believes that Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs is real on why Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has errors in it,"

But sure, if he wants to compare priests to brain surgeons he might as well. Personally I like to think that my 9 year old niece is a rocket scientist.

Hotblack Desiato

Obliq wrote: »

"ACP founder Fr Brendan Hoban likened Mr Browne to “a janitor in Beaumont Hospital explaining to a panel of brain surgeons they were off the mark”. ":

Wow, you just couldn't make this stuff up - and this is supposedly the 'liberal' wing of the RCC :rolleyes:

Sin of pride, anyone? :pac:

lazygal

Bang of superiority off that priest. Theology is something I'm finding increasingly hard to respect as an academic discipline. Sure if you want to study the roots and rules of your favourite private club, that's a nice hobby to fill in the time, but to me its akin to studying Grimms' fairy tales to discern the meaning of life behind them.

tommy2bad

lazygal wrote: »

Bang of superiority off that priest. Theology is something I'm finding increasingly hard to respect as an academic discipline. Sure if you want to study the roots and rules of your favourite private club, that's a nice hobby to fill in the time, but to me its akin to studying Grimms' fairy tales to discern the meaning of life behind them.

But...but...but.. It's the queen of Sciences!

lazygal

tommy2bad wrote: »

But...but...but.. It's the queen of Sciences!

Did you ask a scientician about that?

Obliq

lazygal wrote: »

but to me its akin to studying Grimms' fairy tales to discern the meaning of life behind them.

TBH, you find more in realism in the Grimm's fairy tales about morality and human nature than you do in the bible. Much more worthwhile a study

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

TBH, you find more in realism in the Grimm's fairy tales about morality and human nature than you do in the bible. Much more worthwhile a study

In fairness, Grimm seemed to steer clear of messages on seafood and mixed fabrics, and the evils thereof. Also don't remember much about the dangers of the wimminz when they're on the rag either.

Obliq

lazygal wrote: »

In fairness, Grimm seemed to steer clear of messages on seafood and mixed fabrics, and the evils thereof. Also don't remember much about the dangers of the wimminz when they're on the rag either.

They were pretty big on wicked stepmothers, maiming people and incorporating features of religion like angels and the virgin Mary, as I recall, but you see the same archetypal moral instructions that have been passed down through the ages in the form of stories for children. Marina Warner wrote a few great books on the subject - can't remember the others, but "From the Beast to the Blond" is brilliant.

http://www.marinawarner.com/publications/bookdetailsnonfiction/fromthebeasttotheblonde.html

lazygal

But what about teh ghays?