Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

People in Glass Houses...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 251-275 of 297 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2013 23:40:46 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Coincidences? Or signs...it very much depends on your point of view, doesn't it Tom?

Posted on 30 Jul 2013 00:11:39 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 00:13:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jul 2013 00:16:02 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 00:21:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jul 2013 00:34:42 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 00:47:54 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
You seem desperate to convince the unbelievers of the authenticity of a rather dubious vision, or prophecy. Why? If we're unconvinced by the existence of deities, do you really think we can be persuaded otherwise by stories of magic tricks, miracles and delusions? Those are your beliefs, not mine.

Posted on 30 Jul 2013 02:02:25 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 06:11:54 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'Bellatori says:

Father Ted.... sometimes one gets the whole situation comedy right and it really gels. Father Ted and Porridge did that for me. The Office failed. I found it unfunny and boring.'

I liked the first two, and although I could never get the office I think Ricky Gervais is very funny.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 06:26:40 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jul 2013 07:13:22 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"The thing about Fatima was that these absolutely stupendous events had , the children claimed been foretold as a sign for the world to believe ,months earlier.

And exactly to the day and the minute it happened."
This is now farcical 'Tom', pushing through pretending the sun dance was predicted and happened as promised when all your sources say different is just deluding yourself.

You even show how confused you can get without noticing as you later write:
"The odds against an event as described occurring on the day that some 70 to 100,000 people come to see the prophecy fulfilled, *having no idea what will happen*, and that it happened to the minute or second as predicted is a sign."
How can you say it was predicted if no one knew what to expect? And how can you keep saying it was promised to the second when you have already failed to back this up and complained at being expected to do so.

"I was really surprised that the evidence was so powerful in support of this miracle on Oct 13th at the Ira de Cova, at noon local timem Fatima."
It's quite an odd thing to add that it took place on local time but of course that was one of your slip ups you've had during the pressure put on your claims and so you need to reassert it to condition yourself into believing there is no issue. It's very interesting to see your MO in operation and what it takes to maintain absolute conviction in dubious nonsense.

"Apparently this is the only miracle on record where an actual specific date and time is given.. and met."
Not too many records, or the made up story you copy and pasted which has the priest notice that it was past noon.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 08:35:14 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:10:14 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 09:00:16 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Anyone who sees the evidence, looks at the science and then says MIRACLE is clearly desperately searching for validation for their weak faith."
Interestingly 'Tom' take is that the events are entirely naturalistic, the miracle for him is the accurate prophesy yet there is no detail in his own sources or others to suggest the event was predicted rather than a improvised spectacle intended to surprise the audience.

'Tom' is a bit all over the place one what he thinks happened and what he is supposed to think other than it is - in the end - evidence for God, that is the only consistent claim he has made. The appeals to looking at the science and evidence is there to add a veneer that it is more than blind religious fanaticism adhering to his chosen club.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 09:23:49 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:10:18 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 11:59:40 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jul 2013 19:43:29 BDT
richard says:
the original series of the office was loosely based around the students union offices at a London university. but don't tell anyone!

EDIT should probably have said it was loosely based around some of the staff working there rather than the place itself.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 14:38:08 BDT
Stu says:
hi karen,what no gay priests,or nuns assaulting altar boys and girls

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 14:46:41 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jul 2013 14:47:06 BDT
Dan Fante says:
I was talking about The Office (UK) with my mate recently and we both really liked it. However, when I thought back properly I remembered that when I first saw the episodes I found myself cringing uncomfortably throughout. It was only when the episode was repeated later in the week that, upon re-watching 'prepared' so to speak, that I was actually able to laugh at it. Quite weird for a comedy programme but part of its charm (if that's the right word) I suppose.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 16:20:15 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'Dan Fante says:

I was talking about The Office (UK) with my mate recently and we both really liked it. However, when I thought back properly I remembered that when I first saw the episodes I found myself cringing uncomfortably throughout. It was only when the episode was repeated later in the week that, upon re-watching 'prepared' so to speak, that I was actually able to laugh at it. Quite weird for a comedy programme but part of its charm (if that's the right word) I suppose.'

That's a very good point. I think many of us do that, especially where comedy is concerned. I didn't like Jack Dee one bit, thought he was the flavour of the month and the latest trendy London comedian, until I actually just watched him; and then as now I really find him funny. I am watching Count Arthur Strong at the moment and am enjoying that; kind of original.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 16:28:29 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'Bellatori says:

the Vatican are very canny business people. They are not going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Places like Lourdes and Fatima (and other shrines all over the world) are very important as focusses of faith. They are never going to say Fatima was a fraud. More interesting is that they carefully avoid saying that it isn't. They leave it up to the faithful to decide. It is a nice piece of (very sensible) double speak. They, not unreasonably, want the excitement, the religious fervour, the kudos even, that such places engender amongst the faithful but they know that should they say MIRACLE as Tom does they will quickly lose everything as science outs them.

Since about the 80s and certainly since the 'Devils Advocate' has been abandoned miracles as evidence for beatification have come under extreme focus. I thought it used to be 3 miracles required but apparently it is only two now for beatification. JPII has one under his belt. What a surprise that it turned out to be a spontaneous remission from cancer... the choice of quality for any beatificee!'

And who exactly decides on who can be a saint anyway? Do they have a special squad of I don't know theologians deciding on it?! They made Thomas More a saint relatively recently but he was not quite the nice bloke they have portrayed him in films like 'Man For All Seasons' and 'Anne of the Thousand Days' and others, he did things that I would suggest were not saintly in any way at all, even though he was essentially a man of his time and the Tudor period was a violent, brutal and barbaric era.

I refer you to the Holy Stone of Clonrickert in Father Ted! Two bored Irish priests smoking ciggies in some room somewhere, conversation to the effect of: "Shall we upgrade the stone and make it holier?" "Yeah, whatever." Always made me laugh anyway!

I suppose the serious point is that if you need such 'miracles' for whatever purpose they have, it kind of brings into question all kinds of things. Remember the moving statues in churches in the Republic? Same there, and some kids decided to play a prank and stand behind one for a laugh and move it! Oh well.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 17:21:49 BDT
richard says:
yes that was very much part of it's appeal. it wasn't an easy sitcom to get into because of the cringing one did and the difference in comic technique between the slick fast paced comedies we are used to and this awkward slow presentation where you feel like you've walked into the office and you're having to witness the pain whilst desperately wishing to leave as soon as you can. i think it was more of a comic tragedy.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 19:27:32 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Is it now the job of atheists to champion the causes of the catholic church Diane? The very little good they do doesn't come free, is very far from altruistic, and always comes with their deeply damaging agenda, this has been highlighted on here many times. You it seems are free to ignore all that, so one wonders why sauce for the very silly goose, is not sauce for the gander, so to speak.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 19:29:41 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Jul 2013 19:32:20 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Show one poster claiming they want an atheist state, dear.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 19:39:59 BDT
Mr. A. Slade says:
Newton used to stare at the sun and some of the stuff he wrote on religion who knows what he saw. I'm fairly certain the clever economist Maynard Keynes saw Newton as the last Magi or something of that sorts, though that's a memory and I can't be bothered to Google it.

Ezekiel had visions by the rivers so its quite possibly a universal thing. Elijah's chariot comes to mind as well, so it could be, hesitantly said, that we are singing off the same hymn sheet.

Have you studied any Indian philosophy? it's quite interesting and does not require a literal God but rather a metaphysical god, so a certain god represents a certain part of your phyche, like judgement or summin.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 19:56:15 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 4 Aug 2013 12:10:46 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 20:01:09 BDT
richard says:
i think some of the great comedians and comic writers have taken us out of our comfort zone. i think Frankie Boyle has been doing this for the last few years by being very funny yet terribly 'wrong' at the same time.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 20:06:45 BDT
T.S.C,

I love Count Arthur Strong. I used to listen to him on the radio, so it was hard to adjust to actually seeing him, but he is very funny.

My own favourite is Stuart Lee, though he's been a bit quiet for a few years. Not everybody's cup of tea though.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 20:07:21 BDT
I quite like Frankie as well.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 20:40:30 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'Bellatori says:

I remember the moving stones well!! My point was to look at things that were not an obvious fraud. Fatima was a real experience for thousands of people including some who were miles away. So was shiva's chariot on the Ganges and all the others. People want miracles. They want to believe that there is an after life that is better than this one that they have. I feel for them and pity them.'

I suppose if I am brutally honest, that if you have to have miracles to validate your faith, no disrespect to anyone here btw, then maybe your faith is on shaky ground. I suppose that is always going to be a prerequisite of faith anyway. If people want to see something, then they will convince themselves, or some people, that they have. You can see this on David Icke's websites with the number of people claiming to have seen humans turn into reptiles, one I recall was in an office in a supermarket somewhere. Of course, you will always find in life strange things that come from people who weren't looking for it. I remember I used to get gun magazines as a kid (had a thing about guns but never had one nor have an interest now) and it was an English shooting mag with bits about clay pigeons and rural shooting and all that, but there was a rather interesting feature on strange tales. One was of a guy who went out fishing through the night, and on some lakes he felt serene and safe and on others he felt a sense of terror and fear that made no sense to him. And there were other little snippets about seeing lights in the sky and that. I try just to remain open minded if someone doesn't have an agenda but when there is something behind it, we can't all help but feel cynical about it.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0xae25c51c)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  30
Total posts:  297
Initial post:  26 Jul 2013
Latest post:  2 Aug 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions