Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna - Foe of Modern Ireland

Annasopra

hiram wrote: »

On a serious note, I find your comment that some former members or associates could now be Government ministers, especially since our HQ is mere metres from the dail. Maybe its time to focus our resources on YD to see what lies beneath. I'm definitely going to mention it when we reconvene in September.

I read that as meaning currents ministers homes have been picketed.

Annasopra

hiram wrote: »

On a serious note, I find your comment that some former members or associates could now be Government ministers, especially since our HQ is mere metres from the dail. Maybe its time to focus our resources on YD to see what lies beneath. I'm definitely going to mention it when we reconvene in September.

Who's HQ?

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

Since when was legalising the death of an unborn child a "progressive" move? - If that's "modern", I want nothing to do with it.

Off ye go then.

hiram

mango salsa wrote: »

hiram wrote: »

On a serious note, I find your comment that some former members or associates could now be Government ministers, especially since our HQ is mere metres from the dail. Maybe its time to focus our resources on YD to see what lies beneath. I'm definitely going to mention it when we reconvene in September.

I read that as meaning currents ministers homes have been picketed.

Ah, I see. My bad.

Birroc

syndeyfife wrote: »

Exactly, every Catholic knows you take the bible with a pinch of salt :P

They must use a lot of salt...

hiram

mango salsa wrote: »

hiram wrote: »

On a serious note, I find your comment that some former members or associates could now be Government ministers, especially since our HQ is mere metres from the dail. Maybe its time to focus our resources on YD to see what lies beneath. I'm definitely going to mention it when we reconvene in September.

Who's HQ?

Grand Lodge in Molesworth St.......I'm "one of them"....shhhhhh.

Nodin

hiram wrote: »

Grand Lodge in Molesworth St.......I'm "one of them"....shhhhhh.

The people who killed Jesus for his catholic faith?????????????

Dyr

philologos wrote: »

Since when was legalising the death of an unborn child a "progressive" move? - If that's "modern", I want nothing to do with it.

It's not modern, we've been doing it since forever.

hiram

Nodin wrote: »

hiram wrote: »

Grand Lodge in Molesworth St.......I'm "one of them"....shhhhhh.

The people who killed Jesus for his catholic faith?????????????

Oh Dear. Masonry was formed in the 1700's and.....oh, nevermind.

Dyr

hiram wrote: »

Oh Dear. Masonry was formed in the 1700's and.....oh, nevermind.

How did we put up fancy buildings before that then?

hiram

Nodin wrote: »

hiram wrote: »

Grand Lodge in Molesworth St.......I'm "one of them"....shhhhhh.

The people who killed Jesus for his catholic faith?????????????

Actually, no. This will probably blow your mind. I'm Catholic AND a Mason!!
Mad, eh Ted? In fact one third my mother Lodge are RC.

Nodin

hiram wrote: »

Actually, no. This will probably blow your mind. I'm Catholic AND a Mason!!
Mad, eh Ted? In fact one third my mother Lodge are RC.

O thats ok. I though you were one of them protestants.

They invented contraception ye know.

later12

hiram wrote: »

This will probably blow your mind. I'm Catholic AND a Mason!!
Mad, eh Ted? In fact one third my mother Lodge are RC.

Mind. Blown.

Oh.Emm.Gee..

hiram

Bambi wrote: »

hiram wrote: »

Oh Dear. Masonry was formed in the 1700's and.....oh, nevermind.

How did we put up fancy buildings before that then?

You see, this is the reason I have requested a separate Freemasonry Forum. Urrrrhh. Ok, back on topic, sorry.

SocSocPol

In fairness the rancid raving bitch epitomised the actual teachings of
the R[URL="file://\\roman"]oman[/URL] C[URL="file://\\catholic"]atholic[/URL] church as it is today, to the Caridinal Bradys/O'Connells Ratzingers etc she was an ideal poster child , intolelant, bigoted, single minded and determined, the ideal sturmtrooper of modern Roman Catholicism.

Nodin

hiram wrote: »

You see, this is the reason I have requested a separate Freemasonry Forum. Urrrrhh. Ok, back on topic, sorry.

There isn't a secret one round the back already?

Dyr

SocSocPol wrote: »

In fairness the rancid raving bitch epitomised the actual teachings of
the R[URL="file://\\roman"]oman[/URL] C[URL="file://\\catholic"]atholic[/URL] church as it is today, to the Caridinal Bradys/O'Connells Ratzingers etc she was an ideal poster child , intolelant, bigoted, single minded and determined, the ideal sturmtrooper of modern Roman Catholicism.

The likes of mena and una are about as far from modern catholicism as you can go, they consider the brady's, ratzy's et al to be heretics. You're just losing the run of yourself there. Actually you just sound a bit silly

marienbad

Bambi wrote: »

The likes of mena and una are about as far from modern catholicism as you can go, they consider the brady's, ratzy's et al to be heretics. You're just losing the run of yourself there. Actually you just sound a bit silly

Steady on Bambi - it depends on what perspective you are looking from. To me Ratzinger is just a outwardly less extreme and more polished version of the lady.

Ratzinger/Brady et al had to be dragged kicking fighting and screaming before accepting the issue of child abuse, thus facilitating it even further. They did it on a grand scale , she just on a local scale.

Be careful calling people silly.

philologos

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Im now convinced that the religious right are in fact a secret group of trolls who are very good trolling.

What do you mean by the "religious right"?

You do know that right and left have to do with economical issues. You're probably talking about liberalism and conservatism.

Bambi wrote: »

So you're saying that once you created a void in terms of religious values and all that malarkey, then society will naturally develop love and compassion?

Don't think so, as far as I can see we replaced one set of busybodies who think they know what's best for everyone with another set of busybodies who think they know whats best for everyone.

And the other imported religious nutters are coming along nicely and all, won't be long before that pack of nutters are making their presence felt

See the thing is I suspect that you're saying that anyone who has any faith of any kind at all is a nutter.

That's a highly obnoxious attitude to hold to other people isn't it?

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I've ****in had it with religious people.

Have you had it in with all, or just those of particular religions? I suspect when most people on boards.ie rant about religion it's generally to do with Roman Catholicism, because let's face it there wasn't that much choice in Ireland in comparison to other countries.

Benny_Cake

She was a just a little unhinged alright "ye wife-swapping sodomites!" but, I like most people I would imagine, had forgotten her existence until I saw this thread. I think we have bigger worries now.

Grayson

philologos wrote: »

That's a highly obnoxious attitude to hold to other people isn't it?

Yes, but no. Personally, I'm wary of people who make a decision based on religious values. I don't mind people who have principles, but that's different.

people with principles make decisions based on a combination of rationality and conscience. faith may play a part in this.

Religious people tend to make decisions based on dogma or advice from authoritiy figures. As in the "bible/torah/koran says so".

philologos

Grayson wrote: »

Yes, but no. Personally, I'm wary of people who make a decision based on religious values. I don't mind people who have principles, but that's different.

people with principles make decisions based on a combination of rationality and conscience. faith may play a part in this.

Religious people tend to make decisions based on dogma or advice from authoritiy figures. As in the "bible/torah/koran says so".

It is a bigoted statement to say that all people of faith are nutters insofar as it would be a bigoted statement to say that all atheists are nutters.

Atheists like throwing around the word "rationality" but often don't explain why their point of view is any more rational.

I believe in God, and sure, I put my trust in His word for sure. If God is real, and God has revealed His word to us, that's the only truly rational way to live. If God created the world, He knows far better than I as to both how to live in Creation, and my ultimate identity. So yes, I put my full trust in Him, but more importantly there is reason why I do so.

By the by, I don't stop with just that the Bible says so. It's worth asking why the Bible says what it does. It's not about blindly following what's written in there. Many Christian churches, mine included encourage heavily that believers have a good personal knowledge of Scripture and spend time trying to understand it.

Making a distinction between "people with principles" and people who believe in Jesus is absurd. Both have principles they just have different principles. I'd go as far as to say that every person has a worldview, and their worldviews are based on differing sources, and as a result that worldview influences how they live.

As a Christian, my worldview is based on the Bible, and I live according to the principles that I learn as a result of that basis. Other people do the same thing, just the source differs, and the outcome can differ.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

philologos wrote: »

By the by, I don't stop with just that the Bible says so. It's worth asking why the Bible says what it does. It's not about blindly following what's written in there. Many Christian churches, mine included encourage heavily that believers have a good personal knowledge of Scripture and spend time trying to understand it.

Unfortunately a lot of people do. Yes, he was generalisting, but I see his point: making a decision based on religius values ahead of your own personal exprereience is a bit cowardly.

"Ignore all the evidence of your eyes and your ears and believe only what we tell you: it was the party's final, most important command."
- Orwell, 1984.

Making a distinction between "people with principles" and people who believe in Jesus is absurd. Both have principles they just have different principles. I'd go as far as to say that every person has a worldview, and their worldviews are based on differing sources, and as a result that worldview influences how they live.

As a Christian, my worldview is based on the Bible, and I live according to the principles that I learn as a result of that basis. Other people do the same thing, just the source differs, and the outcome can differ.

The problem, I find, here is that Jesus' teachers are completely at odds with those of Christian religions. Not going into a Bible debate here, but Jesus encouraged people to be think for themselves. Religions do not.

Tipsy McSwagger

Religion poisons everything - Christopher Hitchens

Daisy M

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Religion poisons everything - Christopher Hitchens

Just because someone says something doesn't make it true - Daisy M

philologos

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Unfortunately a lot of people do. Yes, he was generalisting, but I see his point: making a decision based on religius values ahead of your own personal exprereience is a bit cowardly.

"Ignore all the evidence of your eyes and your ears and believe only what we tell you: it was the party's final, most important command."
- Orwell, 1984.

My personal experience is one of the reasons why I regard the Bible as true. Realistically, if I believe God is the Creator of the universe, then why shouldn't I trust Him and His word? I also don't see how it is "cowardly". I just don't get why people insist on making ignorant statements about Christians and Christianity on this forum time and time again. Is it really that difficult to accept that some of us believe in Jesus, and desire to live and speak for Him in our daily lives?

I think about my beliefs very carefully, and I'm actually rather skeptical as an individual, which extends to atheism also.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The problem, I find, here is that Jesus' teachers are completely at odds with those of Christian religions. Not going into a Bible debate here, but Jesus encouraged people to be think for themselves. Religions do not.

If you want to talk about what Jesus believed, we need to get into a Bible debate.

Personally, in many respects I agree with you. I'm thankful that my church spends most of its time and energy equipping people with the Bible so that they can make better decisions concerning it.

If I hear something which I think is unbiblical, I know I can ask my pastor to show me where he got it from Scripture. The idea that most Christians believe blindly is simply untrue as far as I can see.

Jesus established the church, and He sent the apostles out to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:20). It is clear that Jesus intended for the organised meeting of believers. He even speaks about church discipline in the Gospels.

Grayson

philologos wrote: »

It is a bigoted statement to say that all people of faith are nutters insofar as it would be a bigoted statement to say that all atheists are nutters.

Atheists like throwing around the word "rationality" but often don't explain why their point of view is any more rational.

I believe in God, and sure, I put my trust in His word for sure. If God is real, and God has revealed His word to us, that's the only truly rational way to live. If God created the world, He knows far better than I as to both how to live in Creation, and my ultimate identity. So yes, I put my full trust in Him, but more importantly there is reason why I do so.

By the by, I don't stop with just that the Bible says so. It's worth asking why the Bible says what it does. It's not about blindly following what's written in there. Many Christian churches, mine included encourage heavily that believers have a good personal knowledge of Scripture and spend time trying to understand it.

Making a distinction between "people with principles" and people who believe in Jesus is absurd. Both have principles they just have different principles. I'd go as far as to say that every person has a worldview, and their worldviews are based on differing sources, and as a result that worldview influences how they live.

As a Christian, my worldview is based on the Bible, and I live according to the principles that I learn as a result of that basis. Other people do the same thing, just the source differs, and the outcome can differ.

I didn't make any distinction like that. You're seeing what you want to see.

I said there are people who are principled. They may or may not have faith. I deliberately said that faith may be involved in the decision making process of a principled person. When they make a decision, they look at their own conscience and make a decision based on a rational process. faith may play it's part in that process, but it's not the only part.

there are others who do not allow themselves to think. They blindly follow the tenants of their faith without actually considering them. They are the people who will condemn a single mother because they either read it in a bible or a priest told them to. they are not acting rationally. Their decision making process goes no further than "what have i been told/What have I read in my religious tome?" People like the Westboro Baptist Church are good religious examples. But so are athiests like the Khmer Rouge. They are ruthlessly dogmatic.

And I simply stated that people like that, people who follow a dogma rigidly, scare the bejebus out of me.

Mena

Heathens the lot of ye.

Jimoslimos

philologos wrote: »

I think about my beliefs very carefully, and I'm actually rather skeptical as an individual, which extends to atheism also.

What sort of batsh1t crazy statement is that? I don't think you really understand what atheism is.

Do you regard my non-belief in Thor or Zeus with scepticism?

philologos

Grayson wrote: »

I said there are people who are principled. They may or may not have faith. I deliberately said that faith may be involved in the decision making process of a principled person. When they make a decision, they look at their own conscience and make a decision based on a rational process. faith may play it's part in that process, but it's not the only part.

there are others who do not allow themselves to think. They blindly follow the tenants of their faith without actually considering them. They are the people who will condemn a single mother because they either read it in a bible or a priest told them to. they are not acting rationally. Their decision making process goes no further than "what have i been told/What have I read in my religious tome?" People like the Westboro Baptist Church are good religious examples. But so are athiests like the Khmer Rouge. They are ruthlessly dogmatic.

And I simply stated that people like that, people who follow a dogma rigidly, scare the bejebus out of me.

Christians believe that Jesus came into the world not to condemn but to save (John 3:17). We see that Jesus had the quality of being able to befriend those with whom he disagreed while still standing against sin. The point of the Gospel is that Jesus showed grace towards sinners like me by His death and resurrection. The Bible teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of God's standard. (Romans 3:23). All I should do is say that God has called us all to repent of sin, and He came to forgive us so we stand right with God and live according to His standard. I'm no better than anyone else.

I am a bit skeptical when people quote The Westboro Baptist Church - a family church of 70 as an example of roughly 2bn people. Their teaching is detestable and unbiblical as I see it.