Defence Of Catholic Teaching

[Henry]

A former commander of the Swiss Guard, the small force of men whose job it is to protect the pope, has said there is "a network of homosexuals" within the Vatican, the latest in a series of claims about gay priests working at the heart of the Roman Catholic church.

Elmar Mäder, who was commandant of the Guard from 2002 until 2008, said his time at the heart of the Vatican had given him an insight into certain aspects of life there. "I cannot refute the claim that there is a network of homosexuals. My experiences would indicate the existence of such a thing," he told the Swiss newspaper Schweiz am Sonntag.

Famed for their striking uniforms of blue, red and orange, recruits to the Guard swear to protect the pope and his successors with their lives.

Mäder, 50, from the canton of St Gallen, refused to comment on speculation that he had warned guardsmen about the behaviour of certain priests.

Earlier this month, the same newspaper reported the claims of a former, unnamed member of the Guard that he had been the target of more than 20 "unambiguous sexual requests" from clergy while serving in the force.

Recounting a dinner in a Rome restaurant, the man was quoted as saying: "As the spinach and steak were served, the priest said to me: 'And you are the dessert'."

At the time, spokesman Urs Breitenmoser said the rumoured gay network did not pose a problem to the Swiss Guard, whose members he said were motivated by entirely different interests.

Asked about the claims, Mäder reportedly said stories of this kind "obviously lacking in factual basis" were sometimes told. But the facts remained clear, he added. "

A working environment in which the great majority of men are unmarried is per se a draw for homosexuals, whether they consciously seek it out or unconsciously follow an urge," he said.

"The Roman Curia [the Vatican's bureaucracy] is exactly this kind of environment."

Though it does not condemn gay people, whom it says should be "accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity," the catechism of the Catholic church teaches that homosexual acts are "objectively disordered" and calls gay people to abstinence.Mäder, while he said he did not have a problem with homosexuality, said he feared that a network or secret society of gay people within the Vatican could pose security problems. He added that he would not have promoted a gay man in the Guard – not because of his sexuality but because "the risk of disloyalty would have been too high".

Mäder said: "I also learned that many homosexuals are inclined to be more loyal to each other than to other people or institutions," he said.

"If this loyalty were to go as far as to become a network or even a kind of secret society, I would not tolerate it in my sphere of decision making. Key people in the Vatican now seem to think similarly."

The comments appeared to be referring to a remark made by Pope Francis on the flight home from Brazil last summer. "They say there are some gay people here. I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good," the pontiff told journalists, while at the same time joking that, while there was a lot of talk about a gay lobby, he had never seen it stamped on a Vatican identity card.

While Francis signalled a clear conciliatory tone on the issue, he added: "If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them?" Mäder's comments about the supposed threat posed by gay guards and priests drew criticism among rights advocates in Italy.

"Along with all gay people in the armed forces, I would advise Mäder to become better informed," said Aurelio Mancuso, chairman of Equality.

Franco Grillini, chairman of Gaynet, added: "Statistically, gays are the least violent group in human society so if the pope were really surrounded by homosexuals, he could sleep easy."

[fatjim]

So it's not the literati it's the glitterati?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

@ Harcus:

 

Hi Harcus - you are an Orcadian right? Given your obvious interest in Catholicism, (!), why not visit Golgotha Monastery Island one day? Its on Papa Stronsay, which I understand is one of the Orkney Islands (yes?).

 

I would love to visit these guys one day, Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, (Transalpine Redemptorists), they are different gravy. Perhaps I could go on a few days retreat or something. They have a Monastery in New Zealand too. They are a very international congregation.

 

 

 

 

The Monks also make monthly visits to Aberdeenshire, to say latin mass at Blairs College.

 

http://www.papastronsay.com/index.html

 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I am quite surprised at the general lack of quality in the arguments against God.

 

Most times, the rejection seems to have been made based upon something as banal as one’s own five senses. (Though often it is dressed up a bit with various sophistry / grandstanding).

 

I ultimately think people are blase and complacent. At the start of his book, Orthodoxy, Chesterton sets out the goal of the book as being – not to prove the existence of God – but rather to describe and explain the effect of faith on his own life.

 

This effect, he defines as a mixture of warm, comfortable familiarity and complete astonishment. This mixture, he calls “romance”.

 

Astonishment is good, complacency is bad. Complacency leads us not to appreciate what we are and what is around us.

Some relations of mine recently had a baby, my first nephew The baby is about 2 months old, so at the stage of realising that he is able to control his own motor functions and also of increasing awareness of, and interest in, the world around him (starting to track people around the room with his eyes etc).

 

They told me a story about the baby. He was lying in his cot and moving his arms about when, quite suddenly, moved his arm into his own field of vision and so caught sight of his own fist. Apparently, he held his fist in the air above his head and stared at it with pure astonishment for a good while. He then tried to see if his fist could fit inside his mouth (it could not).

 

It is interesting to imagine what thoughts the baby was having at this point. What is this thing (fist) he is looking at, what’s it for? Why can he control it (move it etc)? Does it fit inside my mouth etc?

 

There is something in this story, which reminds me of faith. I think it is the wonder – the astonishment – at the world around us. In comparison, we adults are so sullen. Nothing impresses us, eh?

 

So very few of us are astonished in daily life anymore. I bet you most people who go into a hospital delivery room, for the first time at least, experience complete astonishment. But in general, our society is a deeply cynical and complacent culture.

 

I have a hard time understanding how anyone who is a parent could reject the notion of “something bigger than us”, but then our society shamefully fails to value or defend infant life – indeed, it is seen as entirely disposable - and so how could have no use for God or the astonishment caused by His creations.

 

“Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair” – G.K. Chesterton.

[Henry]

@ Harcus:

 

Hi Harcus - you are an Orcadian right? Given your obvious interest in Catholicism, (!), why not visit Golgotha Monastery Island one day? Its on Papa Stronsay, which I understand is one of the Orkney Islands (yes?).

 

I would love to visit these guys one day, Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, (Transalpine Redemptorists), they are different gravy. Perhaps I could go on a few days retreat or something. They have a Monastery in New Zealand too. They are a very international congregation.

 

 

 

I've no interest in Catholicism, I'm just interested in bumping old topics and hopefully providing some talking points for the forum now and again.

 

I have actually visited the monks though, I used to work on the North Isles ferries, me and couple of the crew got a tour around their island, fascinating to see a different way of life.

[Foster14]

I am quite surprised at the general lack of quality in the arguments against God.

 

Most times, the rejection seems to have been made based upon something as banal as one’s own five senses. (Though often it is dressed up a bit with various sophistry / grandstanding).

 

I ultimately think people are blase and complacent. At the start of his book, Orthodoxy, Chesterton sets out the goal of the book as being – not to prove the existence of God – but rather to describe and explain the effect of faith on his own life.

 

This effect, he defines as a mixture of warm, comfortable familiarity and complete astonishment. This mixture, he calls “romance”.

 

Astonishment is good, complacency is bad. Complacency leads us not to appreciate what we are and what is around us.

Some relations of mine recently had a baby, my first nephew The baby is about 2 months old, so at the stage of realising that he is able to control his own motor functions and also of increasing awareness of, and interest in, the world around him (starting to track people around the room with his eyes etc).

 

They told me a story about the baby. He was lying in his cot and moving his arms about when, quite suddenly, moved his arm into his own field of vision and so caught sight of his own fist. Apparently, he held his fist in the air above his head and stared at it with pure astonishment for a good while. He then tried to see if his fist could fit inside his mouth (it could not).

 

It is interesting to imagine what thoughts the baby was having at this point. What is this thing (fist) he is looking at, what’s it for? Why can he control it (move it etc)? Does it fit inside my mouth etc?

 

There is something in this story, which reminds me of faith. I think it is the wonder – the astonishment – at the world around us. In comparison, we adults are so sullen. Nothing impresses us, eh?

 

So very few of us are astonished in daily life anymore. I bet you most people who go into a hospital delivery room, for the first time at least, experience complete astonishment. But in general, our society is a deeply cynical and complacent culture.

 

I have a hard time understanding how anyone who is a parent could reject the notion of “something bigger than us”, but then our society shamefully fails to value or defend infant life – indeed, it is seen as entirely disposable - and so how could have no use for God or the astonishment caused by His creations.

 

“Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair” – G.K. Chesterton.

 

Your posts astonish me. I am not sure why I find them so compelling, but I do. I think it may be largely due to how articulate you are in describing your faith. Personally never had any person try and convey/defend their faith to me and therefore my exposure to support of religion usually comes from brain-dead god-fearing folks, or extremist sorts.

 

In answer to your first point though, the quality of your arguments to me are rather poor, especially since they all centre around believing in Catholicism's view of a God. What kind of arguments do you expect when this is the kind of pro arguments you give.

 

The mere notion of dispelling looking at it as a theory, instead looking it as a love affair, is laughable. It is comparable to children and Santa Claus. People can believe in things purely through disinformation and a want for it to be true.

[Ke1t]

 

 

I am quite surprised at the general lack of quality in the arguments against God.

 

Most times, the rejection seems to have been made based upon something as banal as one’s own five senses. (Though often it is dressed up a bit with various sophistry / grandstanding).

 

 

Why are you surprised?

 

There need be no complex argument regarding gods.

 

Either they exist or they do not.

 

In the absence of empirical proof, gods are nothing more than theory.

 

While that may seem banal, there's no point in giving undue credence to an unprovable, unsupported theory such as 'gods'.

 

On the obverse, anyone who attempts a detailed and manifold rebuttal is accused of fanaticism or "if you don't believe in gods then why go to all the bother of trying to disprove them?"

 

I'm afraid that the reality is banal, though. Either a god shows itself, be it Thor, Odin, Vishnu, or Ra, or I'm afraid there's little to be debated on the subject.

 

Perhaps if religion followed the scientific method and attempted to prove their 'god theory' rather than simply expecting people to accept their theory on faith, then Theists might have more credibility than they currently do when it comes to theological debate.

 

You would think with all the various gods theorised to be running/flying around there would have been evidence of at least one of them by now.

[Scrumpy]

If there is a god (or gods) they like to torture human kind (the evidence is all around us)... either that or there is a devil (or devils) and they must be more powerful than the gods.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I've no interest in Catholicism, I'm just interested in bumping old topics and hopefully providing some talking points for the forum now and again.

I know, I was only winding you up

I have actually visited the monks though, I used to work on the North Isles ferries, me and couple of the crew got a tour around their island, fascinating to see a different way of life.

Cool. I would love to visit there. I saw a program about them, and they were explaining how the island has no trees, due to the driving winds.

 

What is the annual weather like up there? Are there any calm periods, or it is pretty lively the whole year around?

[Guest]

I am quite surprised at the general lack of quality in the arguments against God.

 

...

 

There is something in this story, which reminds me of faith. I think it is the wonder – the astonishment – at the world around us. In comparison, we adults are so sullen. Nothing impresses us, eh?

 

So very few of us are astonished in daily life anymore. I bet you most people who go into a hospital delivery room, for the first time at least, experience complete astonishment. But in general, our society is a deeply cynical and complacent culture.

 

I have a hard time understanding how anyone who is a parent could reject the notion of “something bigger than us”, but then our society shamefully fails to value or defend infant life – indeed, it is seen as entirely disposable - and so how could have no use for God or the astonishment caused by His creations.

 

“Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair” – G.K. Chesterton.

 

I'm not surprised because there is no real arguments against god. Arguably, there are no real arguments for god either, or specifically, no real arguments for the interpretation of god by any organised religion.

 

I would agree with the notion that there is something bigger than us but where I disagree with you, and every "man of faith" is in what this something might be. Personally, I believe it is a force, not a being - historical or omnipresent - and that whatever it may be is unknown to man and possibly never fully knowable by him. The force of nature does me, if labels are mandatory. I'm cool with not knowing too, where most are petrified at their ignorance. Religions were built to satiate this need to know, to give context to "the big questions" and to exploit people.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Your posts astonish me. I am not sure why I find them so compelling, but I do. I think it may be largely due to how articulate you are in describing your faith. Personally never had any person try and convey/defend their faith to me and therefore my exposure to support of religion usually comes from brain-dead god-fearing folks, or extremist sorts.

I don't think I do a particularly good job of it, I am prone to verbosity and rambling lol

In answer to your first point though, the quality of your arguments to me are rather poor, especially since they all centre around believing in Catholicism's view of a God. What kind of arguments do you expect when this is the kind of pro arguments you give.

I try to not reference my own faith in my arguments. I think that would be a mistake.

 

For a discussion to be fruitful, both parties must be on the same playing field - otherwise there is no point.

 

This is a mistake which "bible believing" protestants often fall into. Their understanding of the bible is that its an infallible document, which is the supreme authority on any matter.

 

(this is obviously nonsense - but they really do buy it).

 

Then, when they have a discussion with an atheist, or someone else with a different viewpoint, they immediately justify their arguments by simply referencing the Bible.

 

For them, the Bible says it; therefore, end of story. They are quite happy with that explanation.

 

But imagine how massively patronising and infuriating that would be to an atheist, or to someone from a different faith tradition.

 

Essentially, they are being asked to accept an argument purely because it says so in an ancient book. How patronising. In this example the two people are not just "not on the same level" but "not in the same universe."

 

Accordingly they will not have a fruitful discussion - all that will happen is that the atheist will feel patronised and the protestant will inevitably feel insulted or hurt, when the atheist naturally responds to being patronised with ridicule or invective.

 

We Catholics try to avoid this!

 

So when I discuss e.g. the existence of God, I will discuss how amazing and complex the world is, not the book of Genesis.

 

If the topics is homosexuality, I will reference human biology and health statistics, not barbaric passages from the Old Testament.

 

For any discussion to be worthwhile, about anything, you have to talk the same language as the other person.

 

I actually quite like fielding questions or criticisms about faith - because it constitutes (part of) a rigorous exercise of weighing things up.

 

If I ever found I was not satisfied with my own answers, I would think "maybe I am wrong here".

The mere notion of dispelling looking at it as a theory, instead looking it as a love affair, is laughable. It is comparable to children and Santa Claus.

I disagree, love is the absolute crux of the whole matter.

 

Sometimes I stop for a minute and think "how great is the love which the Father has lavished on us?"

 

By that I mean look at all these wonderful things I have in my life - a wife, a flat, a car, a good job, family and friends etc etc - yes, many people have these things, but we all take them for granted. We don't appreciate them on a daily basis.

 

These things make my life very happy and I try to appreciate them. I quite naturally feel a sense of gratitude for them.

 

Towards whom do you think this gratitude should be aligned towards? Who is ultimately responsible.

 

If there is no God, why do I feel a sense of gratitude?

 

Why do I not simply accept these things as "bog standard" or as "my rights" or my natural entitlement?

People can believe in things purely through disinformation and a want for it to be true.

That's is absolutely right, but there is no better place for believing bullshit than in secular society. For example, look at common secular beliefs:

 

Homosexuality isnt disordered - this conclusion mocks biological science

 

Abortion isnt murder - this conclusion mocks human embryology

 

The truth is out there alright.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

There need be no complex argument regarding gods.

 

Either they exist or they do not.

 

In the absence of empirical proof, gods are nothing more than theory

 

This is reasonable (though of course, by virtue of the word "God" there can be only one God.)

 

Why is it that you discount the universe and your own existence as proof? (or at least, as a question mark?)

 

If a couple you knew had a baby - is the creation of the baby down to them alone? It is some party trick they know?

 

Sure, if we examined the childs mother and father, we could examine DNA, chromosomes etc etc which help us understand the childs appearance and physical attributes.

 

But where does the childs personality come from? His / Her emotions? All the bits of "them" which go beyond mere flesh and blood? Where does that come from?

 

Sure, to some extent our environment shapes us in this way, but even the 2 month old baby I mentioned before has a personality. Hes always had it, we just haven't seen it so much as yet, given how much he loves sleeping! (nearly as much as me!).

 

What empirical proof would you accept?

 

Even if God made a big public show of descending down to Time Square, NYC, to hold a Q&A session with members of the public - in just a few years, no-one would believe it. You would find the Heavenly Q&A session derided / rejected in the same way as a Virgin Birth or the Resurrection.

 

Jesus Christ was born ~2000 years ago, and many today reject accounts of his lifetime - or even his actual existence.

 

The Miracle of the Sun (Fatima, Portugal) happened just 97 years ago - few people have even heard of that, let alone believe it. Yet, at the time, it occurred at a pre-appointed time, was witnessed by tens of thousands of people who had come specifically to see it, and was reported in newspapers around the world.

 

 

There are various theories to explain why happened - some claim a hoax, others claim people had been starting right at the sun and so "saw things" having hurt their eyes, others still blame natural phenomena like the Northern Lights.

 

The first two we can I think discard given the sheer numbers of people involved, as well as the remarkable testimony of many those present (some people said they saw nothing). I pinched these quotes from wiki for convenience:

 

 

Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people."

 

― Avelino de Almeida, writing for O Século

 

(O Século was Portugal's most widely circulated and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time. Almeida's previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.)

 

 

"The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible."

 

— Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University

 

The other explanation is a natural phenomenon, but:

 

 

The ... solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere... there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon... Either all the observers in Fátima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention

 

- Pio Scatizzi, Jesuit priest

 

 

I do believe in mass hysteria, (check out any boy-band concert), but not a hysteria which could grip the whole of such a large crowd, especially not as it contained many people not given to being credulous or gullible, such as the quoted people above.

 

I am not well versed in what happened at Fatima, I only raise it to show that even when “something” happens - even very publicly - it can quickly be forgotten or discarded.

 

In 1917, people were at least prepared to consider these events, but today it would be dismissed out of hand with no thought at all.

 

At the end of the day, God is not going to make a habit of nipping back and forth repeatedly to assure us of His existence. For that would be to make us God, and to place Him at our own beck and call.

[Ke1t]

At the end of the day, God is not going to make a habit of nipping back and forth repeatedly to assure us of His existence.

 

 

 

Then the same level of credibility can be attributed to unicorns, goblins, pixies, elves, and the leprechaun I claim resides in my arse.

 

People make the mistake of assuming agnosticism is the 'wise' and 'default' choice, and it isn't. It's a lazy choice that requires no critical thinking.

 

In the total absence of any sort of evidence to support my claim of a leprechaun residing up my arse why would you give credence to a claim that lacks no obvious credibility?

 

Were I to say, "Do not test the existence of the leprechaun in my arse, for that shows a lack of faith and will anger the leprechaun in my arse." that dodge still does nothing to advance either the empirical eviedence nor the likelyhood of a leprechaun living in my arse. In fact, to the critical mind it sounds exactly like the sort of excuse I might use to prevent you from looking up my arse, because I know and you know there's no leprechaun in my arse at all to any reasonable degree of likelyhood.

 

So, when you say, "At the end of the day, God is not going to make a habit of nipping back and forth repeatedly to assure us of His existence." you are merely saying, "Test not the leprechaun in my arse."

 

If, however, you are going to believe in a god based purely upon an unsupported notion that there is a god, and that you shoudn't seek proof of said god, but rather just believe what you're told on the subject, then you should logically be prepared to believe in the leprechaun up my arse, the unicorn in my ballsack, and the pixie in my cock.

 

Do you believe I have magical and fantastical mythic creatures residing in my arse, cock, and balls?

 

Logically, anyone agnostic about gods should also be agnostic about my arse leprechaun, my scrotum-horse, and my nob-goblin.

 

Test them not....

 

It's considerably worse for yourself, however, given your proclivity towards not even requiring basic evidence in order to just go the whole hog and downright believe these kinds of things exist... to not even sit on the fence.

[The Boofon]

Is the leprechaun in your arse male or female?

 

Is he/she your "Lucky Charm"?

 

I don't believe you with regards to the unicorn.

 

Oh and it's knob-goblin not nob-goblin.

 

A whole different thing altogether.

 

Trust me I know a thing or two about knob-goblin.

[robbojunior]

 

Jesus Christ was born ~2000 years ago, and many today reject accounts of his lifetime - or even his actual existence.

 

Did Jesus exist? Of course, lots of men called Jesus did. But who cares, since none of them was born to a virgin or rose from the dead

[Ke1t]

Is the leprechaun in your arse male or female?

 

Is he/she your "Lucky Charm"?

 

I don't believe you with regards to the unicorn.

 

Oh and it's knob-goblin not nob-goblin.

 

A whole different thing altogether.

 

Trust me I know a thing or two about knob-goblin.

 

I'm unsure as to the gender of the leprechaun in my arse... suffice to say it's in there, and it's real. Test it not, though. You can't expect it to pop out just to prove it exists.

 

 

 

Trust me I know a thing or two about knob-goblin.

 

Brave of you to admit it...

[Guest]

Atheists who champion their own cause with great passion and who cite no proof of god as their killer point, I can understand. I don't agree with them and I feel sorry for them but I at least understand their argument against organised religions. I even agree with them that organised religion is a total heap of bollocks.

 

But when an athiest criticises everyone who is not an athiest, the religious and the not-religious-but-who-are-not-atheist, I see no difference between this position and totalitarianism. Criticise the religious and their fantasies by all means. But calling those of us who are neither atheist nor religious lazy and accusing us of critical thinking defects is incredible. This is naziism and thought-intolerance bred from fear and small-minded ness, just like every other totalitarian regime in the whole of history and exactly the same fear and demand for answers that fuels every world religion.

 

I feel sorry for noisy atheists who try to hide their fear and ignorance behind a cloak of logic, empirical proof and science.

 

Their defect is a lack of imagination and defects of "critical feeling", their instincts having long since evaporated. They are exactly the same as the pious, demanding closure on the biggest questions without appreciating the difference between what is fully knowable and that which might not be knowable or can not be.

 

Denying the spirituality within themselves through stupidity is fine but don't force your fucking stupidity down our throats.

[The Boofon]

 

Did Jesus exist? Of course, lots of men called Jesus did. But who cares, since none of them was born to a virgin or rose from the dead

A nun gave birth last week despite never having had sex. Or so she claims.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10581481/Nun-gives-birth-to-baby-named-after-Pope.html

[fatjim]

Atheists who champion their own cause with great passion and who cite no proof of god as their killer point, I can understand. I don't agree with them and I feel sorry for them but I at least understand their argument against organised religions. I even agree with them that organised religion is a total heap of bollocks.

 

But when an athiest criticises everyone who is not an athiest, the religious and the not-religious-but-who-are-not-atheist, I see no difference between this position and totalitarianism. Criticise the religious and their fantasies by all means. But calling those of us who are neither atheist nor religious lazy and accusing us of critical thinking defects is incredible. This is naziism and thought-intolerance bred from fear and small-minded ness, just like every other totalitarian regime in the whole of history and exactly the same fear and demand for answers that fuels every world religion.

 

I feel sorry for noisy atheists who try to hide their fear and ignorance behind a cloak of logic, empirical proof and science.

 

Their defect is a lack of imagination and defects of "critical feeling", their instincts having long since evaporated. They are exactly the same as the pious, demanding closure on the biggest questions without appreciating the difference between what is fully knowable and that which might not be knowable or can not be.

 

Denying the spirituality within themselves through stupidity is fine but don't force your fucking stupidity down our throats.

 

If you can give reason for believing in spirituality then I will consider it. Until then it is just the stuff of nonsense. I never pegged you for being a fucking hippy, Rocket.

[Guest]

If you can give reason for believing in spirituality then I will consider it. Until then it is just the stuff of nonsense. I never pegged you for being a fucking hippy, Rocket.

 

I don't need to give you a reason for fuck all. Im no fucking hippy but there is a spiritual side to our existence. Just because I can't express it or articulate it doesn't mean that it's not there. I recognise that there is something spiritual without having the knowledge to define it.

 

This is all there is to our existence: -

 

 

Neglect any part of life, whether physical health, mental health or any of the rest of it and you'll feel the void, eventually.

[Guest]

Only those with instinctius defunctum would believe only in Body and Mind and fail to acknowledge Consciousness.

 

You would have to be really sad and without any imagination to deny the possibility of anything beyond Mind.

 

The emptiest make the most noise etc. The ones who shout they've got all the answers never do. Humility bypasses.

[Jigot]

 

I don't need to give you a reason for fuck all. Im no fucking hippy but there is a spiritual side to our existence. Just because I can't express it or articulate it doesn't mean that it's not there. I recognise that there is something spiritual without having the knowledge to define it.

 

This is all there is to our existence: -

 

 

Neglect any part of life, whether physical health, mental health or any of the rest of it and you'll feel the void, eventually.

Would you agree Rocket, that the Financial part can effect the other parts to a greater degree than the rest. If you catch my drift.

[Guest]

Would you agree Rocket, that the Financial part can effect the other parts to a greater degree than the rest. If you catch my drift.

 

No. I don't see how one's bank balance affects one's physical health or spirituality. Of course, there is a relationship between money and happiness for many but plenty of examples of rich and unhappy and poor and contented. You can spend more on a bigger social life but finance does not improve relationships with family or friends. I see all six as separate and distinct and all equally important. Being skint can fuck with your mind so that's probably the closest nexus of them all, worrying about your ability to provide for your family etc. and for lesser men, losing self-confidence, fight and ultimately any ability they had, often as a result of depression, whether chemically imbalanced or psychologically weak. I've been skint. I know what it's like. I may be skint again one day and I don't want to go back there so I'm doing what I can to ensure that won't happen. I would rather be content and broke than loaded and pressured, every day of the week, any year of my life.

[Jigot]

I suppose that present circumstances in ones life can dictate as to what part of ones life is dominant at the time. I think that you would need to be very fortunate to have all parts in perfect sync.

[Guest]

Not saying anyone on the planet has perfect sync. Just saying that's all there is to focus on and the part that others deny exists, I disagree with them.

[fatjim]

I will leave spirituality to the fucking hippies.

[Guest]

I will leave spirituality to the fucking hippies.

 

I hardly think you and me are ever going to be considered world authorities on the matter.

 

One thing is certain however, from this thread.

 

You have made up your mind. You have no room left for the "astonishment" that our resident kafflick fuck talks about.

 

And you have no room left for any fucking thing else.

 

I wish I had come across such certainty at your tender age. Must be magic to have it all worked out already.

[fatjim]

I personally do have time for the natural wonders that we have on this planet but I am not going to proportion it to mythical beings and spiritual nonsense. Science offers the best explanation for all of it in fields like geology, meteorology, biology etc etc. We are adults we don't need to bring magic into this.

[Jigot]

Not saying anyone on the planet has perfect sync. Just saying that's all there is to focus on and the part that others deny exists, I disagree with them.

The aulder I get the more prone I am to hedge my bet. I don't for one minute believe that there's an auld codger with a voluptuous white beard, sitting on his Eezee Boy on a floating cloud but there might be something.

 

I'll post an update after next week's semi.

[fatjim]

Thousands of years of superstition that is there to put fear into you. To begin with it is fear at childhood so you behave then when you get older it is the fear that you will end up hell.

There is nothing to fear so you can chill.