Mary says YES!

Cabaal

frostyjacks, its evident that you just like to moan about anyone who you don't agree with,

When you make the mistaken belief that nobody has raised there concerns you try and belittle people for doing nothing,
When somebody says they've raised their concerns then you still moan,

Its evident you have no real interest in this topic and you're just here to moan regardless of what is or is not done, its all rather silly.
If you think the whole thing is pointless then why are you even reading or posting in this thread?

robindch

Mod:

frostyjacks wrote: »

Do you not think children's charities have more important things to be doing than indulging your paranoid delusions?

And I'm sure most posters here have more important things to do than indulging yours.

As a general comment, try toning down the rhetoric a little and you'll come across as less unhinged than you currently do.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

frostyjacks, its evident that you just like to moan about anyone who you don't agree with,

When you make the mistaken belief that nobody has raised there concerns you try and belittle people for doing nothing,
When somebody says they've raised their concerns then you still moan,

Its evident you have no real interest in this topic and you're just here to moan regardless of what is or is not done, its all rather silly.
If you think the whole thing is pointless then why are you even reading or posting in this thread?

Why are atheists reading religious textbooks?

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why are atheists reading religious textbooks?

Because our children often have to attend such religious schools and the religious instruction we're allowed to opt out of is regarded as the most important school subject by the Department of Education in terms of what children in national schools learn.

I would think any parent worth their salt keeps a close eye on the materials used in the schools their children attend.

pauldla

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why are atheists reading religious textbooks?

Loopholes?

To find out just how far human kicks can go?

Shgits and giggles?

I suspect you have an answer in mind already, though.

Dan_Solo

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why are atheists reading religious textbooks?

Because the state forces them to. BOOM.
Why are Catholics reading atheist chat boards?

volchitsa

swampgas wrote: »

[Faithsplaining mode on]

Well accepting the actual evidence at face value would lead to a logical chain of events in OEJ's head that would smash the Chinese wall that exists between what he believes and knows to be real, and what he "believes" based on faith but knows deep down isn't real at all.

This type of tortuous mental gymnastics is unfortunately far too familiar on this forum - you simply can't get someone to accept a fact that's right under their nose if accepting that fact will undermine some dearly held belief. It's a bit like a self-imposed super-injunction: not only must the believer deny obvious facts to themselves in order to maintain a faith-based position, they must also suppress the knowledge that they are actually engaging in self-deception. "Faith formation" is teaching children how to perform these mental gymnastics, which is why to many non-religious people it is so objectionable - it can permanently damage your ability to think clearly.

[Faithsplaining mode off]

That's an absolutely spot on description, swamp gas.

I love how we sometimes come across little pearls here, it's what keeps me coming back, despite all the other nonsense!

Dan_Solo

lazygal wrote: »

Why would Barbados need to know about an Irish religious textbook?

Are there any priests formerly involved in education in Ireland "on holiday" there?

Cabaal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Are there any priests formerly involved in education in Ireland "on holiday" there?

95.5% christian country, good chance of it

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

95.5% christian country, good chance of it

So did anyone respond to your concerns?

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

So did anyone respond to your concerns?

In Barbados?

frostyjacks

lazygal wrote: »

In Barbados?

Anywhere. I'd be surprised if anyone took it seriously.

evolving_doors

frostyjacks wrote: »

Barbados etc.? Seriously? Do you not think children's charities have more important things to be doing than indulging your paranoid delusions?

Do let us know how they respond, if they even dignify it with a response.

It's a paranoid delusion to think that 'God' impregnated Mary.
It's a cold fact that children are being told this is what happened 2000 odd years ago.

she was afraid but said yes... because... well he's god isn't he! So was David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, Jim Jones, his followers had faith formation too I presume.

Kiwi in IE

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Because the state forces them to. BOOM.

Is there a cleric poking them with a stick making them read the text books?

Dan_Solo

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Is there a cleric poking them with a stick making them read the text books?

Level 7 cleric, with a read magic spell...

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Is there a cleric poking them [...]

A dreadful image flitted past my eyes there for a moment.

*wipes brow*

Fleawuss

The reality is that until someone can produce a religion syllabus carrying the approval of a RC bishop that has printed across the top of it "teach this as fact" some people will never accept that there is evidence that religious mumbo jumbo is taught as fact in Irish national schools. It has been pointed out repeatedly in the thread that the absence of any caveat about the material being conjecture effectively presents it as fact. The deeper point is again the seeking of refuge in literalism and professed ignorance of how the world works accompanied by pedantry reveals the moral bankruptcy and intellectual vapidity of defense of religion. It is great to see religion hang itself again and again in this thread.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

The reality is that until someone can produce a religion syllabus carrying the approval of a RC bishop that has printed across the top of it "teach this as fact" some people will never accept that there is evidence that religious mumbo jumbo is taught as fact in Irish national schools.

Personally, I'd accept that as fact; so long as the syllabus did in fact contain religious mumbo jumbo, of course.

Fleawuss wrote: »

It has been pointed out repeatedly in the thread that the absence of any caveat about the material being conjecture effectively presents it as fact.

Hmm.. my immediate thought with that would be, if that is the case (since has obviously not been substantiated), how effectively presented is it then? Because if it is not effectively presented as fact, than there's no apparent issue with what is presented; the perceived issue rests entirely on the effectiveness of the presentation. For instance, the story that is the subject of the OP; if it is not effectively presented as a fact that children should accept the advances of adult sexual predators despite their misgivings, but is instead effectively presented as fact that people should accept they may be chosen by God to do great things for the world despite their misgivings, it's a whole different discussion.

Fleawuss wrote: »

The deeper point is again the seeking of refuge in literalism and professed ignorance of how the world works accompanied by pedantry reveals the moral bankruptcy and intellectual vapidity of defense of religion. It is great to see religion hang itself again and again in this thread.

Nah, there's no deeper point. Some people will seek to find any fault they can in something they disagree with, regardless of how much they stretch credulity to do so, that's really all it boils down to. Quite novel that on this occasion religious opinion is accused of seeking refuge in literalism, when it's more usually accused of hiding behind allegory. Still, as long as we understand that we should be mindful of peoples motivations when we consider their actions (or opinions) we should be well able to respond appropriately; just as I'm sure if you look at things though just the right tint of glasses you can find moral bankruptcy and intellectual vapidity pretty much anywhere you decide you're going to.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

For instance, the story that is the subject of the OP; if it is not effectively presented as a fact that children should accept the advances of adult sexual predators despite their misgivings, but is instead effectively presented as fact that people should accept they may be chosen by God to do great things for the world despite their misgivings, it's a whole different discussion.

and then:

Some people will seek to find any fault they can in something they disagree with, regardless of how much they stretch credulity to do so, that's really all it boils down to.

lol

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Nah, there's no deeper point. Some people will seek to find any fault they can in something they disagree with, regardless of how much they stretch credulity to do so

Having a problem with teaching children to trust strangers who want to impregnate them in a school system that has no alternative to cult brainwashing isn't exactly a frantic search for an issue that isn't there.

frostyjacks

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Having a problem with teaching children to trust strangers who want to impregnate them in a school system that has no alternative to cult brainwashing isn't exactly a frantic search for an issue that isn't there.

It's not a stranger, it's not a story about impregnating children. This is where the argument falls flat on it's face. It smacks of desperation; sling enough mud and something will stick.

Dan_Solo

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not a stranger, it's not a story about impregnating children. This is where the argument falls flat on it's face. It smacks of desperation; sling enough mud and something will stick.

In the book she looks about 10. And if the fairytale of the nativity isn't about a pregnancy then we have a whole new new testament on our hands.

anothernight

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not a stranger, it's not a story about impregnating children. This is where the argument falls flat on it's face. It smacks of desperation; sling enough mud and something will stick.

In most instances of child sexual abuse, the perpetrator isn't a stranger either, but someone well known to, and often loved by, the victim. I bet a child would recognise an uncle or a father a lot easier than they'd recognise an angel sent by god, by virtue of having seen the uncle or father many times before.

Whether impregnation would happen or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that children are being taught that it's ok to say yes in situations they are not comfortable with, while they're scared and alone, if the person in charge in these situations is someone they know (such as a loved uncle).

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

and then:
lol

lol indeed, aren't I glad I never said the teaching itself was credible...

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Having a problem with teaching children to trust strangers who want to impregnate them in a school system that has no alternative to cult brainwashing isn't exactly a frantic search for an issue that isn't there.

It is a bit of a reach to equate an omniscient omnipresent all powerful deity with 'strangers who want to impregnate' all the same.... before you even get to the notion of 'a school system that has no alternative to cult brainwashing".

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

It is a bit of a reach to equate an omniscient omnipresent all powerful deity with 'strangers who want to impregnate' all the same.... before you even get to the notion of 'a school system that has no alternative to cult brainwashing".

You seemed confused as to how the fairytale goes? It was the angel Gaybo, not God himself, who made the house call.

Absolam

anothernight wrote: »

In most instances of child sexual abuse, the perpetrator isn't a stranger either, but someone well known to, and often loved by, the victim. I bet a child would recognise an uncle or a father a lot easier than they'd recognise an angel sent by god, by virtue of having seen the uncle or father many times before.
Whether impregnation would happen or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that children are being taught that it's ok to say yes in situations they are not comfortable with, while they're scared and alone, if the person in charge in these situations is someone they know (such as a loved uncle).

But there is no inference that this is someone Mary knows (never mind the child hearing the story). Most people don't appear, as in the picture, as rays of light streaming through the window. These children are being taught by a teacher, and no one can actually say factually that they are being taught that it's ok to say yes in situations they are not comfortable with, while they're scared and alone, if the person in charge in these situations is someone they know; even the article doesn't try to go that far. It certainly isn't listed as one of the teachers objectives that are set out for the lesson, which centre on the conveying of news, not assenting to unwanted advances.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You seemed confused as to how the fairytale goes? It was the angel Gaybo, not God himself, who made the house call.

I have a passing acquaintance with it; I'm pretty sure it wasn't Gabriels child she agreed to carry.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

I have a passing acquaintance with it; I'm pretty sure it wasn't Gabriels child she agreed to carry.

But that isn't who called in the made up yarn and therefore the child depicted is expected to trust implicitly. It 100% was not who you claimed it was who the novelists pretended visited "Mary".

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But that isn't who called in the made up yarn and therefore the child depicted is expected to trust implicitly. It 100% was not who you claimed it was who the novelists pretended visited "Mary".

You seem confused as to what I said. In the post you quoted I said it is a bit of a reach to equate an omniscient omnipresent all powerful deity with 'strangers who want to impregnate' all the same.... before you even get to the notion of 'a school system that has no alternative to cult brainwashing'.
No mention of who's doing the visiting; just the impregnating.
If you recall the story (and the article) "Mary chose freely to respond to God's invitation by saying 'Yes'. Despite her uncertainty, she had enough trust in God to agree to his request".
So it is God whom the young woman is depicted as deciding to trust implicitly. It 100% was not the Angel, who only delivered the joyous message to Mary.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

You seem confused as to what I said. In the post you quoted I said it is a bit of a reach to equate an omniscient omnipresent all powerful deity with 'strangers who want to impregnate' all the same.... before you even get to the notion of 'a school system that has no alternative to cult brainwashing'.
No mention of who's doing the visiting; just the impregnating.
If you recall the story (and the article) "Mary chose freely to respond to God's invitation by saying 'Yes'. Despite her uncertainty, she had enough trust in God to agree to his request".
So it is God whom the young woman is depicted as deciding to trust implicitly. It 100% was not the Angel, who only delivered the joyous message to Mary.

What you have to remember, Dan, is that children are wiser than adults and would not be confused by just who was to be trusted in this situation. They would not misunderstand if someone were to say to them 'God would like you to do this'. They would stand and point an accusing finger and say, no, you are not the Angel Gabriel, get thee hence!

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

You seem confused as to what I said. In the post you quoted I said it is a bit of a reach to equate an omniscient omnipresent all powerful deity with 'strangers who want to impregnate' all the same.... before you even get to the notion of 'a school system that has no alternative to cult brainwashing'.
No mention of who's doing the visiting; just the impregnating.
If you recall the story (and the article) "Mary chose freely to respond to God's invitation by saying 'Yes'. Despite her uncertainty, she had enough trust in God to agree to his request".
So it is God whom the young woman is depicted as deciding to trust implicitly. It 100% was not the Angel, who only delivered the joyous message to Mary.

This stuff is quite mad.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

What you have to remember, Dan, is that children are wiser than adults and would not be confused by just who was to be trusted in this situation. They would not misunderstand if someone were to say to them 'God would like you to do this'. They would stand and point an accusing finger and say, no, you are not the Angel Gabriel, get thee hence!

So that we're clear, just how many adults do you imagine, on encountering a sexual predator in their bedroom disguised as a supernatural entity manifesting as rays of light proclaiming a message from another supernatural entity, are likely to decide to conclude they should therefore engage in unwanted sexual acts with another sexual predator?
I'd like to get an idea of what proportion of adults you think we're expecting children to be wiser than, because I've a suspicion it's a vanishingly small one....

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

This stuff is quite mad.

Which is not exactly the same thing as grooming for pedophiles.

expectationlost

Frank Fitzgibbon @FrankSunTimes
ST News: Religious book for senior infants criticised over depiction of Mary as child agreeing to become pregnant bit.ly/1MTsrKu
https://twitter.com/SenThomasByrne/status/658045711888568320
Thomas Byrne
@SenThomasByrne
@FrankSunTimes sure why doesn't atheist ireland go the whole hog and try get Painting(s) of the Annunciation removed from national gallery

the Annunciation in the NG http://onlinecollection.nationalgallery.ie/view/objects/asimages/search@swg'Annunciation'/0/sortNumber-asc?t:state:flow=9bdabbfb-98c4-4c74-8f6e-f2bd15c84e22

theres a few I presume the one from the studio of Rubens is the most well known painting

NG Childrens Pack http://www.nationalgallery.ie/en/Learning/Families_and%20_Young_People/~/media/Files/Education/Family%20Packs/Childrens%20Pack%20April%202011.ashx highlights the Jacques Yverni, version


this story always been creepy http://caravaggista.com/2011/12/the-annunciation/

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

Which is not exactly the same thing as grooming for pedophiles.

I am typing something random too.

expectationlost

has anyone seen the video? http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

I am typing something random too.

Still?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

No mention of who's doing the visiting; just the impregnating.
If you recall the story (and the article) "Mary chose freely to respond to God's invitation by saying 'Yes'. Despite her uncertainty, she had enough trust in God to agree to his request".
So it is God whom the young woman is depicted as deciding to trust implicitly. It 100% was not the Angel, who only delivered the joyous message to Mary.

So, angel walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but don't tell anybody unless you want God to be angry with you".
And that's supposed to be all fine and dandy; a good message to give.

But if a paedophile priest walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but don't tell anybody unless you want God to be angry with you."
The child is supposed to see through this straight away, on account of being previously taught the correct message at school?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

So, angel walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but don't tell anybody unless you want God to be angry with you".
And that's supposed to be all fine and dandy; a good message to give.

I must have missed the bit where the angel said "don't tell anybody unless you want God to be angry with you". I can't see it in the lesson, nor can I find it in the Bible. In fairness, the rest is more than a little fast and loose with what actually is in the Grow In Love lesson, but I wonder, is there any chance you may be deliberately misrepresenting the lesson in order to make it more like something you can object to? I think there is......

recedite wrote: »

But if a paedophile priest walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but don't tell anybody unless you want God to be angry with you."
The child is supposed to see through this straight away, on account of being previously taught the correct message at school?

So, you alter what's being taught so that it will conform to what you claim to fear? Hmm. Still not seeing too many children mistaking pedophile priests for supernatural entities, but I take your point; if you completely rewrite what is actually being presented, you can in fact make it look like something entirely different. Good job?

Bristolscale7

As I pointed out in another post, Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier named Panthera not god.

Fleawuss

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

As I pointed out in another post, Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier named Panthera not god.

Ah here, have you the oul DNA proof of that at all at all?

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

As I pointed out in another post, Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier named Panthera not god.

Didn't you also point out at the time that you read the author purely because of his anti-Christian polemic? Can we take from your "P" and "g" that you're hopeful of filling his sandals so to speak?

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

but don't tell anybody unless you want God to be angry with you".

wheres that in the story?

pauldla

expectationlost wrote: »

where that in the story?

Um, near the back? Near the bit with the seven headed demon?

Actually it's a good point, there's not much point bringing forth the Son of God if you're not allowed to tell anyone. But there are other passages in the Gospels where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying '....and don't tell anyone about it', are there not?

looksee

recedite wrote: »

So, angel walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but it is what god wants and he will be pleased with you".
And that's supposed to be all fine and dandy; a good message to give.

But if a paedophile priest walks into 12 year old's bedroom and says "I'm gods representative here on earth. Something you may not be comfortable with is going to happen soon, but it is what god wants and he will be pleased with you."
The child is supposed to see through this straight away, on account of being previously taught the correct message at school?

Recedite, you have to be very careful not to leave tiny holes that can be nit-picked through, alternative version above.

expectationlost

portrayed as a child? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpU3dWdVOyM http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/
if he had said maybe perceived as a child...
see page 4 http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/media/wysiwyg/Junior_Infants_sampler-web.pdf

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Um, near the back? Near the bit with the seven headed demon?
Actually it's a good point, there's not much point bringing forth the Son of God if you're not allowed to tell anyone. But there are other passages in the Gospels where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying '....and don't tell anyone about it', are there not?

Where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying don't tell anyone about the Annunciation, or where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying don't tell anyone about something else?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Recedite, you have to be very careful not to leave tiny holes that can be nit-picked through, alternative version above.

Well... don't fabricate your own story and expect people not to spot the overt substitution might be more to the point... just as with your own version of the story.

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

Where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying don't tell anyone about the Annunciation, or where God/Jesus/Whomever is saying don't tell anyone about something else?

The latter.