1000's of kids making their communion today

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Your church does that all the time. The pope - your leader- makes his views on gay people very clear. He reminds us every few weeks that it's an abomination. Quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

Making stuff up again Kenny? Just when I thought we might actually really be getting somewhere in understanding each other. If you were actually looking for an example of hypocrisy, the hypocrisy is in the fact that I identify as a member of the RCC, yet I disagree with the Hierarchy's stance on homosexuality. That quite frankly, is a hypocrisy I can live with, and feel no guilt in doing so whatsoever. For all your moralising about your freedom of expression, you seem to think that it's only you has that right.

I'd think that was hypocritical myself, but I wouldn't see it as my right to use my freedom of expression to pass judgement upon you.

My daughter didn't make hers last week, and feels very close to logical thought & freedom of expression.

I'm delighted for your daughter, perhaps she could teach you a thing or two about what she's learned. Meanwhile my young lad is gone to a Communion today, his Muslim friends cousin is Roman Catholic.

One eyed Jack

unseenfootage wrote: »

I'm not here to defend Catholicism.
Certainly not all religious people are free from doing "wrong" just like not all godless people are bereft from doing "right."

Why is child rape, robbing and committing incest wrong, in your opinion?

Ahh stop ffs :rolleyes:

unseenfootage

Atheist want to mock religious practices like communion, yet champion the cause of homosexuals that want to perform marriage - which is a religious practice.
Complete nonsense.

eviltwin

unseenfootage wrote: »

Atheist want to mock religious practices like communion, yet champion the cause of homosexuals that want to perform marriage - which is a religious practice.
Complete nonsense.

Marriage is a legal partnership first, a religious ceremony second

unseenfootage

unseenfootage wrote: »

Atheist want to mock religious practices like communion, yet champion the cause of homosexuals that want to perform marriage - which is a religious practice.
Complete nonsense.

My friend got married last year, there was no religion involved.
I fail to understand your point?

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

It's just unfortunate he doesn't realise that, passes his ignorance onto his kids, and thus the cycle continues. Ignorance perpetuates ignorance - that's how religion works.

How do you explain your own ignorance then Kenny if it wasn't religion? Or was it your rejection of religion that made you feel like you were now an enlightened human being? Or was it... science?

Get them while they're young & have the people they look up to most (their parents) indoctrinate them during their formative years, so it's harder to shake.

Kenny that could be applied to any type of parenting that you personally do not approve of. I can guarantee you for a fact that my child is nowhere near as ignorant as you're currently displaying.

A lot of us do shake it off when we reach our teens and start exercising common sense & logic - but some of us are too weak to.

Kenny just how old are you exactly, because you have yet to display so much as an ounce of common sense or logic?

unseenfootage

bubblypop wrote: »

My friend got married last year, there was no religion involved.
I fail to understand your point?

Marriage originates from religion.
Is your friend an atheist?

unseenfootage

eviltwin wrote: »

Marriage is a legal partnership first, a religious ceremony second

A religious partnership with its basis in religion.
Traditionally all the laws pertaining to marriage are derived from religious principles. .i.e: (age, gender, filial relations, religious affiliation, economics etc.)
In most christian countries, the secular establishment inherited the bulk of the marriage laws from the church.

eviltwin

unseenfootage wrote: »

A religious partnership with its basis in religion.
Traditionally all the laws pertaining to marriage are derived from religious principles. .i.e: (age, gender, filial relations, religious affiliation, economics etc.)
In most christian countries, the secular establishment inherited the bulk of the marriage laws from the church.

Marriage is first and foremost a legal issue. If my priest marries me it might be a religious union but until I satisfy the legal side of things it's not a valid marriage . You can have a marriage without the religious side, you can't have it without the legal side. The state sets the parameters for marriage, not a religion.

Heat_Wave

Can't believe the OP received so many thanks.

I know a lot of priests (friends of the family, relatives etc.) and not alone would they be incredibly insulted by the OP, they would also feel terribly hurt.

What a horrible thing to post.

unseenfootage

eviltwin wrote: »

Marriage is first and foremost a legal issue. If my priest marries me it might be a religious union but until I satisfy the legal side of things it's not a valid marriage . You can have a marriage without the religious side, you can't have it without the legal side. The state sets the parameters for marriage, not a religion.

Looks like you completely ignored my previous post.
The obligation of marriage - (in order to make lawful the sexual relations between man and woman,) is fundamentally a religious law. In case you don't know all religions have laws.
Secondly, as I state, all the conditions of marriage, (gender, age, etc.) are based on religious law. Secularism inherited these laws from the church.

eviltwin

unseenfootage wrote: »

Looks like you completely ignored my previous post.
The obligation of marriage - (in order to make lawful the sexual relations between man and woman,) is fundamentally a religious law. In case you don't know all religions have laws.
Secondly, as I state, all the conditions of marriage, (gender, age, etc.) are based on religious law. Secularism inherited these laws from the church.

I don't know the history of marriage, perhaps you are correct and it has its origins in religion but it's evolved beyond that. It's no longer that way. All marriages have to first satisfy the laws of the land in order to be recognised. The law has now changed to allow gay couples to marry, it may not be right according to your faith but it's legally sound and that's all that matters.

One eyed Jack

unseenfootage wrote: »

Looks like you completely ignored my previous post.
The obligation of marriage - (in order to make lawful the sexual relations between man and woman,) is fundamentally a religious law. In case you don't know all religions have laws.

I ignored it the first time, but since you bring it up again, religious marriage has no standing in civil law. Marriage was not historically based in religion. Religions co-opted civil marriage and wrapped it up in a bow and gave it it's religious meaning according to their own terms and conditions. That's why I was puzzled by liberal types championing their victory in the marriage equality referendum because the oldest conservative social construct in human history was now available to them. The even more liberal progressive types completely reject the concept of marriage altogether claiming it is an oppressive social construct of a patriarcal society.

Secondly, as I state, all the conditions of marriage, (gender, age, etc.) are based on religious law. Secularism inherited these laws from the church.

Secondly, you're still mistaken. In case you don't know, no, not all religions have laws, and the conditions of marriage aren't at all based on religious law. Other way round horse, see above.

Kenny Bania

unseenfootage wrote: »

On the flipside. There is zero evidence that God does not exist. That doesn't seem to stop you from preaching that God doesn't exist.

lol - that old chestnut? Really?

Firstly, the onus is on the person making the wild claims to provide proof for them. And secondly - if you want to apply your logic - how about you first disprove the other 2000 Gods in the world, then I'll disprove your one last.

Pick one option from the above - you can't have it both ways.

unseenfootage wrote: »

Atheist want to mock religious practices like communion, yet champion the cause of homosexuals that want to perform marriage - which is a religious practice.
Complete nonsense.

It's not a religious practice - it's civil. At least gets your facts straight before you try & enter a debate.

Kenny Bania

Heat_Wave wrote: »

I know a lot of priests (friends of the family, relatives etc.) and not alone would they be incredibly insulted by the OP, they would also feel terribly hurt.

And I know people who were abused by the church who feel insulted that so many people seem okay with still being associated with it. Even after all of the abuse scandals & cover-ups came to light, people just brush it off & continue to attend the church, thus making light of the crimes committed.
People still attending church after all of the crimes shows complete indifference to the victims.
That was my original point, and it still stands.

Eugene Norman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I ignored it the first time, but since you bring it up again, religious marriage has no standing in civil law. Marriage was not historically based in religion. Religions co-opted civil marriage and wrapped it up in a bow and gave it it's religious meaning according to their own terms and conditions. That's why I was puzzled by liberal types championing their victory in the marriage equality referendum because the oldest conservative social construct in human history was now available to them. The even more liberal progressive types completely reject the concept of marriage altogether claiming it is an oppressive social construct of a patriarcal society.





Secondly, you're still mistaken. In case you don't know, no, not all religions have laws, and the conditions of marriage aren't at all based on religious law. Other way round horse, see above.

While you are right that the legality of religious marriages non existant, you are wrong that this is historically true. Religions precede states.

purplecow1977

Kenny Bania wrote:

And not only that, a few weeks before their communion, they send their kid into a box with a dirty old man who asks them about all the naught things they've been getting up to lately!! aka 'first confession'. They're 8 - they have nothing to confess to you, ya big weirdo FFS!

Confessions are generally not conducted in confessional boxes anymore.

If a parent wishes their child not to partake, I have no problems with that

Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania wrote: »

And I know people who were abused by the church who feel insulted that so many people seem okay with still being associated with it. Even after all of the abuse scandals & cover-ups came to light, people just brush it off & continue to attend the church, thus making light of the crimes committed.
People still attending church after all of the crimes shows complete indifference to the victims.
That was my original point, and it still stands.

And I know at least 2 people, my Mam's age, who were abused as youngsters, both of whom still go to mass.
So, it works both ways Kenny .

My mother, is a mass goer & religious person, you are insulting her by saying she condone child abuse. She absolutely does not.

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

And I know people who were abused by the church who feel insulted that so many people seem okay with still being associated with it. Even after all of the abuse scandals & cover-ups came to light, people just brush it off & continue to attend the church, thus making light of the crimes committed.
People still attending church after all of the crimes shows complete indifference to the victims.
That was my original point, and it still stands.

But that's complete and utter rubbish really, because none of that gives you, or anyone else the right to make the original claims you did. You can make them of course, but in order for them to have any legitimacy, you have to be able to substantiate them. You haven't provided any quantitive substantiation for your claims yet. A couple of random links from everywhere on the web is not substantive evidence that people brushed anything off, nor that they made light of crimes committed.

People's attendance at Church in no way is a reflection of their feelings towards people who committed crimes against anyone, and is certainly not any indication of indifference towards the victims of those crimes, many of whom were and are, and still are, members of the RCC, and regularly attending mass as well as practicing their faith.

Your point doesn't stand, as your allegations are completely without foundation, and that's what you should be pointing out to anyone else who tries to make the claims you did - they're going to need some damned hard evidence before they go about suggesting that people "must be cool" with child molesters.

It's a loaded, ignorant, malicious, inflammatory statement designed to get a reaction. Your basic schoolboy error though was you went full outrage too soon. You never go full outrage Kenny. People laugh at that sort of ignorance more than they are offended by it, because they've heard the insincerity of it all before, and your insincerity was blatantly transparent from the opening post.

eviltwin

Kenny Bania wrote: »

And I know people who were abused by the church who feel insulted that so many people seem okay with still being associated with it. Even after all of the abuse scandals & cover-ups came to light, people just brush it off & continue to attend the church, thus making light of the crimes committed.
People still attending church after all of the crimes shows complete indifference to the victims.
That was my original point, and it still stands.

Harsh as it sounds that is their problem. It's not healthy to have that kind of anger. I understand it because I took things like that very personally for a while until I realised it's not about condoning abuse, it's a personal thing. I'm just happy that I don't have any relationship to the church anymore, I'm just happy to not let it be part of my kids experience of childhood. I'm still hurt by the lack of justice and the attitude of the hierarchy. I still feel sad that so many people got away with it for so long but that's okay. It's not okay to take that anger out on those who had no part in it. If everyone stayed home from mass nothing would change.

One eyed Jack

Eugene Norman wrote: »

While you are right that the legality of religious marriages non existant, you are wrong that this is historically true. Religions precede states.

Good article on a brief history of marriage here:


http://captainment.blogspot.ie/2004/09/brief-origins-of-marriage.html?m=1


The original article is gone now, but I can point to plenty of sources that suggest marriage was a social construct long before religion ever became involved.

fran17

Heat_Wave wrote: »

Can't believe the OP received so many thanks.

I know a lot of priests (friends of the family, relatives etc.) and not alone would they be incredibly insulted by the OP, they would also feel terribly hurt.

What a horrible thing to post.

Indeed,the A&A forum seems to have been reduced to be little other than an incubator for untruths,insults and general bile.

Kenny Bania

bubblypop wrote: »

My mother, is a mass goer & religious person, you are insulting her by saying she condone child abuse. She absolutely does not.

She shows support for an organisation that partook in systematic child abuse. If she's cool with that fact, then that's her issue. I don't think it's okay though.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People's attendance at Church in no way is certainly not any indication of indifference towards the victims of those crimes

Yes it is. It shows that they'll still blindly support an organisation, no matter how evil the crimes committed by said organisation. It's disgusting; showing that sort of indifference to child abuse.

eviltwin

It's a funny way of thinking Kenny. Like saying a vegetarian who shops in a place that sells meat is condoning animal cruelty.

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

He shows support for an organisation that partook in systematic child abuse. If she's cool with that fact, then that's her issue. I don't think it's okay though.

It doesn't show anything like you're suggesting Kenny, and you're damaging your own credibility by continuing to assert those kinds of nonsense claims even though it has been pointed out to you time and time again that you are absolutely, categorically and completely wrong.

Yes it is. It shows that they'll still blindly support an organisation, no matter how evil the crimes committed by said organisation. It's disgusting; showing that sort of indifference to child abuse.

I'm thinking of getting you a wooden spoon for Christmas Kenny, the biggest one I can find. You'll be able to stir shìt without even getting your hands dirty.

Kenny Bania

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't show anything like you're suggesting Kenny

Yes it does. It shows that an organisation can commit pure evil crimes, try to cover them up on a global level, and hinder investigations - but people will still show full support for the organisation that committed these crimes. It baffles me that they do - but it's true - we see delusional gombeens coming out of churches every week with big dopey smiles on their faces as if it's all just hunky dory. Sticking their head in the sand.

2 questions:
1) Did the church commit the crimes I said they did?
2) Are people still going to mass & supporting the church, even after said crimes?

Exactly. That proves my point. If people had a problem with the crimes committed by the church, they would shun the church. Yet we don't see that from these people. Surely these crimes are unforgivable, aren't they??

it has been pointed out to you time and time again that you are absolutely, categorically and completely wrong.

Just when you thought opinions were subjective, along comes a religious person to tell you you're categorically and completely wrong.

Would you still be a member of the Jimmy Savile fanclub too after all the facts came out? Sure why not? You still enjoy Jim'll Fix It - nothing wrong with that, eh? Sure it was just a few kids - kids get molested all the time by other people too, so no biggie eh?

mackeire

Kenny Bania wrote: »

My daughter didn't make hers last week, and feels very close to logical thought & freedom of expression.

Good for her

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I know he's doing his best. But what he believes IS wrong - there is zero evidence for a god. Believing in a 2000 year old book filled with nonsense is really gullible & an insult to anyone's intellect - especially as it contradicts everything we know about physics, how the world works, and what we as people experience about the world in our own lifetimes.

It's just unfortunate he doesn't realise that, passes his ignorance onto his kids, and thus the cycle continues. Ignorance perpetuates ignorance - that's how religion works. Get them while they're young & have the people they look up to most (their parents) indoctrinate them during their formative years, so it's harder to shake. A lot of us do shake it off when we reach our teens and start exercising common sense & logic - but some of us are too weak to.

Pal I don't believe in anything. But i'm all for whatever makes people feel happy in their few years on this world.

If you want to spend your life arguing and trying to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong, then that's up to you but I guarantee that you won't be happy because there will always be people that you can't convince and that will drive you nuts!

For me, if my son wants to go to mass, then i'm going to bring him, it makes him happy. If he takes comfort that dead relatives are in heaven watching over us, then that's okay with me too!

Buddy, life is too short! Go out and enjoy yourself and who cares really what people believe in. Sure in 100 years none of us will be here and an entirely new set of people will be walking this earth trying to make their own way through life.

eviltwin

Kenny you can't compare a global organisation that is the Catholic church with a television show.

Kenny Bania

mackeire wrote: »

Sure in 100 years none of us will be here and an entirely new set of people will be walking this earth trying to make their own way through life.

Exactly - which is why I choose to live it, and not waste it on believing in fairytales & going to mass & praying to an imaginary friend.

Kenny Bania

eviltwin wrote: »

Kenny you can't compare a global organisation that is the Catholic church with a television show.

See 6 posts up. You used a "meat shop" analogy - but I can't use a TV show?

And I didn't compare it with a TV show by the way - I used a person as an analogy - a person who committed similar crimes but also had lots of fans - so quite a solid analogy compared to your vegetarian one.