The Eucharistic Congress in 2012

All the more reason for you not to comment on Ash22's declaration that it would be an event to excite practising catholics then.
 
MrMan said:
All the more reason for you not to comment on Ash22's declaration that it would be an event to excite practising catholics then.
Click to expand...

Thank you for telling me on a public forum what I should and should not pass comment on. I hadnt realised you were a moderator.
 
Mr Man just out of curiousity and getting slightly away from the topic and not knowing your status but lets say if you were to be married in the morning would you marry in the Church? and what happens when it comes to the end of your life would you have a Church funeral?
 
Thank you for telling me on a public forum what I should and should not pass comment on. I hadnt realised you were a moderator.
Click to expand...

No problem
 

Yes to both.
 
MrMan said:
All the more reason for you not to comment on Ash22's declaration that it would be an event to excite practising catholics then.
Click to expand...

So by extension only economists should comment on the state of the economy, only teachers should comment on education, only doctors/nurses should comment on the HSE ?
 
MrMan sorry I meant that question for Truthseeker, sorry again. its over to you Truthseeker.
 
redstar said:
So by extension only economists should comment on the state of the economy, only teachers should comment on education, only doctors/nurses should comment on the HSE ?
Click to expand...

Constructive comments on the topics and mocking are very different.
So by extension, as you put it, its a free for all to mock anything that I dont understand or have no interest in? Its blatant Catholic Church bashing and nothing more.
 
Ash 22 said:
MrMan sorry I meant that question for Truthseeker, sorry again. its over to you Truthseeker.
Click to expand...

I am getting married next year in a civil ceremony - no church involvement.

Im not all that concerned with what happens when I die, on a personal level Id be happy to be cremated with no religion involved. However if the people I leave behind draw comfort from doing a church ceremony then I wont really be in a position to dispute it!!! I would imagine anyone who knows me who would be in charge of dealing with my remains would know I wouldnt be interested in a church ceremony for that.
 
bullbars said:
Constructive comments on the topics and mocking are very different.
So by extension, as you put it, its a free for all to mock anything that I dont understand or have no interest in? Its blatant Catholic Church bashing and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Im afraid I find constructive comments on an organisation that promotes an imaginary belief an impossibility. I am as entitled as anyone else to post on a topic, what you see as mocking I see as truth. It has nothing to do with a lack of understanding or a lack of interest.
 
bullbars said:
Constructive comments on the topics and mocking are very different.
So by extension, as you put it, its a free for all to mock anything that I dont understand or have no interest in? Its blatant Catholic Church bashing and nothing more.
Click to expand...

The point I am making is aimed at people who take offence and try to limit discussions.
And yes, you can mock anything you like. If people take offence, thats down to their own sensitivities. The best defence to offence is to ignore it.
 
So by extension only economists should comment on the state of the economy, only teachers should comment on education, only doctors/nurses should comment on the HSE ?
Click to expand...
Ash22's comment was stating that cathlolics would be excited by the prospect of the event, truthseeker undermined that by saying:
Id be more excited about the possibility of a Rooster Worship Congress - at least roosters exist.
Click to expand...
There was no need for that comment because ash's comment was obviously directed at catholics.
 
I wasn't trying to limit discussion I do realise that people will mock and sometimes try to offend.

redstar said:
The point I am making is aimed at people who take offence and try to limit discussions.
And yes, you can mock anything you like. If people take offence, thats down to their own sensitivities. The best defence to offence is to ignore it.
Click to expand...
 
MrMan said:
I wasn't trying to limit discussion I do realise that people will mock and sometimes try to offend.
Click to expand...

Actually I was just being mildly humourous in my original post that started all this off, I notice that on page 1 other posters made similiarly off the cuff remarks but (and not for the first time) MrMan decided to take a swipe at me which then led to all of the rest of it.
 

While it is slightly getting away from the Eucharistic Congress I have a problem with your statement above. You say there are "good priests" but where were these priests when abuse was going on in the church?
The present hierarchy in the Catholic Church worldwide were the very ones who moved "bad priests" to different parishes, to different countries without firstly reporting them to the Police of the duristriction and secondly hindered subsequent investigations. That is what the "good priests" did.

With regard to the Eucharistic Congress itself. The Catholic Hierarchy are quite entitled to hold it but I would hope that the government does not get involved in it in any shape or form. Unlike 1932 there is no room (or appetite) for state involvement or tax payers money in this event.

The Pope may visit ahead of this event and he should be greeted just like any other head of state, with courtesy and dignatity but I would hope that the government would voice its displeasure to the head of Vatican City for its cover up of the abuse of Irish citizens.
 
Id be more excited about the possibility of a Rooster Worship Congress - at least roosters exist.
Click to expand...

Very convincing logic there Truthseeker. Although still not as convincing as the central reasoning of new Atheism which goes along the lines:

1. My choc-ice melted on my hand
2. This is a bad thing to happen and it upset me.
3. God--an omniscient, wholly good being--would not allow bad things to happen to me
4. God did not prevent my choc-ice melting on my hand.
5. Ergo, there is no God.

 
your humourous post was in response to someone who obviously had some belief in religion so I felt it was ill timed at best. It didn't bother me really, just standing up for the underdog.
I have disagreed with you before because we have held different views on some things I don't do it just to disagree with you, I've probably even agreed with you from time to time and now i'm going to have to disagree with you more so it doesn't look like you got to me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register