Mary says YES!

volchitsa

realdanbreen wrote: »

And it is hypocrasy of the highest order for an atheist to attend church services which is why a genuine athesit would never do so.

1) what's a fake atheist : one who actually believes in God but doesn't wasn't to admit it?

2) if religion is anything more than carrying out a particular set of meaningless rituals, i.e. If you believe God exists, then shouldn't you be encouraging as many atheists, genuine or otherwise, to attend church in hopes that God will act to convert them?

Or is the reality that you don't actually believe any of it yourself, which explains why you can't even imagine the possibility of someone else having a genuine religious experience?

Because otherwise, your insistence that atheists are unwelcome in church is quite odd really. I remember reading a brilliant book about Catholic priests in China long before Communism and they mentioned that the Chinese would often turn up in their services out of curiosity, and that was their opportunity to create a contact at least. But then you're presumably not a fan of missionaries going off to convert atheists either, I guess? Or do foreign atheists not count?

robindch

realdanbreen wrote: »

And it is hypocrasy of the highest order for an atheist to attend church services which is why a genuine athesit would never do so.

No, it isn't - not any more than it's hypocrisy for a religious person to cross the road without calling down blessings for themselves, and imprecations for uncareful drivers, from the very highest vaults of whatever heaven they happen to believe in.

As I mentioned last week, I was at a catholic church service in south Dublin earlier in the year and -- as a piece of supremely pointless, surrealist performance art -- it was simply unbeatable.

And on a mod note, please drop this topic? Nobody's taking the bait and your posts are becoming more than usually repetitive.

expectationlost

did we find out whether kids are susposed to believe that an angel appeared?

Dan_Solo

expectationlost wrote: »

did we find out whether kids are susposed to believe that an angel appeared?

We found that it was true but it wasn't a fact.
And we were all too stupid to understand the difference.

lazygal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

We found that it was true but it wasn't a fact.
And we were all too stupid to understand the difference.

Factual truth or truthful facts or something.

expectationlost

Chris Hayden: Atheist Ireland’s retelling of the Annunciation story ‘perverse’ http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/chris-hayden-atheist-ireland-s-retelling-of-the-annunciation-story-perverse-1.2432320

The story opens by identifying the person who visited Mary, and it describes how he approached her with great respect. We read that Mary was initially perturbed, but that by the end of the conversation with the visitor, she was reassured and had agreed to participate in the plan outlined by Gabriel.

the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation

For Christian faith, this story is a foundational narrative. When it is being taught to young children, its theological import is, of course, not laboured. Instead, the main point drawn from it is that God, who cares for all his children, invites us to live according to his wise and loving plan.

not a fan of what AI did with this, but seems Catholic literally caricatured themselves, the cruxifiction is a seperate story

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

Chris Hayden: Atheist Ireland’s retelling of the Annunciation story ‘perverse’
not a fan of what AI did with this, but seems catholic caricatured themselves, the cruxifiction is a seperate story

I'm hoping stories like this and the other recent one,
Archbishop of Dublin to decide if five year old boys are right kind of Catholic for school presented by Hotblack Desiato on the School Patronage thread, aren't indicative of a new policy to deliberately present distortions of facts in an effort to pursue an anti-theist agenda; it would be both unworthy and beneath AI to engage in such guttersniping.
I think the word 'mendacious' used by Hayden in the Times is a very appropriate description for both pieces.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

I'm hoping stories like this and the other recent one,
Archbishop of Dublin to decide if five year old boys are right kind of Catholic for school presented by Hotblack Desiato on the School Patronage thread, aren't indicative of a new policy to deliberately present distortions of facts in an effort to pursue an anti-theist agenda; it would be both unworthy and beneath AI to engage in such guttersniping.
I think the word 'mendacious' used by Hayden in the Times is a very appropriate description for both pieces.

Thank you Absolem, that is exactly the argument I have been making over the last couple of days. How is it a 'distortion of facts'?

Hopefully we are getting nearer to an opportunity to legally challenge the Catholic Church's takeover of state institutions.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Thank you Absolem, that is exactly the argument I have been making over the last couple of days. How is it a 'distortion of facts'?

The story about the Annunciation, or the story about the Archbishop?

looksee wrote: »

Hopefully we are getting nearer to an opportunity to legally challenge the Catholic Church's takeover of state institutions.

Not sure how you think that relates to either story, but if you don't think "the Catholic Church's takeover of state institutions" can be legally challenged now, what makes you think it could be in the future?

expectationlost

this was on liveline today https://youtu.be/N16eWz6hOzE

basillarkin

expectationlost wrote: »

this was on liveline today

long into the show? wouldnt mind a listen

realdanbreen

There was some guy on from atheist ireland but he came accross as a bit hypersensitive. These guys seem to think that the school teacher has the primary responsibility in rearing their children.

Dan_Solo

realdanbreen wrote: »

There was some guy on from atheist ireland but he came accross as a bit hypersensitive. These guys seem to think that the school teacher has the primary responsibility in rearing their children.

That's odd, because most theists seem to think it's the school teacher's job to teach their children religion.

realdanbreen

realdanbreen wrote: »

There was some guy on from atheist ireland but he came accross as a bit hypersensitive. These guys seem to think that the school teacher has the primary responsibility in rearing their children.

He was also talking about kids being indoctrinated, as if the parents had no role to play in the childs upbringing. It's just another reason why the majority take atheism with a pinch of salt.

Kev W

realdanbreen wrote: »

He was also talking about kids being indoctrinated, as if the parents had no role to play in the childs upbringing. It's just another reason why the majority take atheism with a pinch of salt.

What does that actually mean? That the majority don't believe that Atheists are Atheists? That Atheism is some kind of sign of a foolish person?


Kids can still be indoctrinated in school even if their parents don't do so at home, so your idea that concern about such indoctrination implies a belief that parents don't have a role to play in their child's upbringing is flawed.