Irish Catholicism supports same-sex marriage!

The stunning vote of the Irish to legalize same-sex marriage will be taken as one more indication (along with the legalization of divorce and homosexual behavior and abortion if the mother’s life is at risk, plus the decline in Mass attendance and priestly vocations) of the collapse of the Catholic Church in a country where it once bestrode the sod like a colossus. Such would appear to be the wages of a rolling sexual abuse scandal, particularly acute because of the church’s control of public education, and the ugly history of its abusive homes for wayward boys and girls.

But for all that, Ireland remains a country where over 70 percent of the population identifies as Catholic, where a higher proportion of Catholics go to Mass than in the U.S., where the divorce rate is low. And yet, every Irish political party supported the referendum and the citizenry voted in favor by a 62-38 margin. What gives?

What gives, in part, is that Catholicism, understood as a religious culture rather than as a set of official doctrines, is far more amenable to same-sex marriage than is generally thought. Unlike Protestantism, it never valorized the nuclear family as the church in miniature. Catholics have, by contrast, exercised their analogical imaginations in understanding nuns as married to Jesus and bishops to their dioceses. Priests are fathers; abbeys are governed by mother superiors; monks are brothers; nuns are sisters. In Catholicism, there have always been different kinds of holy families that love makes — and so, why not add one more? It’s no accident that Catholics in the U.S. — white, Hispanic, and otherwise — support same-sex marriage at the same rate as the Irish voted.

Beyond that, the Church in Ireland, whatever its faults, understands itself as linked to the populace in an integral, even tribal way, so that it must be where the Irish people are. That, I think, is why the Irish bishops, while opposing the referendum, did so in a way that made clear that church would not condemn a yes vote. As Bishop Donal McKeown of Derry said during a radio debate, “I don’t doubt that there are many people who are practicing churchgoers of whatever church background who will in conscience vote yes and that’s entirely up to them. I’m not going to say they’re wrong,”

In contrast to the bishops of France, who leapt to the barricades to fight same-sex marriage as if fighting the French Revolution all over again, in Ireland the bishops understood that the community mattered more than the doctrine, that they would have no part of a culture war that divided their country.

The Irish vote will resonate around the world, and perhaps even ring a bell with the two Irish Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy, who represent the swing votes on next month’s decision to determine whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to be married in the United States. For the vote is not just about which way the winds of public opinion are blowing. It’s also about the spirituality of marriage equality.


- See more at: http://marksilk.religionnews.com/2015/05/23/irish-catholicism-supports-same-sex-marriage/#sthash.EbxmlO4j.dpuf

pressure is greater than faith in catholicism no great surprise...

they think a guy in a wooden box can forgive their sins..

Nothing to do with pressure but how people are far more progressive today, which is the most beautiful way of respecting the teachings of Jesus. One of the greatest progressives we have had in history.

Belatucadros wrote:Nothing to do with pressure but how people are far more progressive today, which is the most beautiful way of respecting the teachings of Jesus. One of the greatest progressives we have had in history.

of course it's pressure, what else would it be, the word of God clearly states what it thinks of gays, if they chose not to believe the word then they have real troubles, just because they claim to be Catholics it dosn't mena anything either, if you filled in a cv at one time everyone in england would put coe, they would never step foot in a church.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:Nothing to do with pressure but how people are far more progressive today, which is the most beautiful way of respecting the teachings of Jesus. One of the greatest progressives we have had in history.

of course it's pressure, what else would it be, the word of God clearly states what it thinks of gays, if they chose not to believe the word then they have real troubles, just because they claim to be Catholics it dosn't mena anything either, if you filled in a cv at one time everyone in england would put coe, they would never step foot in a church.

That is utter nonsense, nobody has forced the hand of anyone how to vote here and they voted with their conscience, showing true progression as advocated by Jesus himself to vote yes. If anything it would be those placing pressure on them because of their faith to vote no using fear of claims made of that faith. So you really are talking utter nonsense.

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
of course it's pressure, what else would it be, the word of God clearly states what it thinks of gays, if they chose not to believe the word then they have real troubles, just because they claim to be Catholics it dosn't mena anything either, if you filled in a cv at one time everyone in england would put coe, they would never step foot in a church.

That is utter nonsense, nobody has forced the hand of anyone how to vote here and they voted with their conscience, showing true progression as advocated by Jesus himself to vote yes. If anything it would be those placing pressure on them because of their faith to vote no using fear of claims made of that faith. So you really are talking utter nonsense.

Jesus would not vote yes at all...lol...

of course they are under pressure the world keeps telling us we must accept gays are normal..

they have chose to turn against their faith and that is their choice...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

That is utter nonsense, nobody has forced the hand of anyone how to vote here and they voted with their conscience, showing true progression as advocated by Jesus himself to vote yes. If anything it would be those placing pressure on them because of their faith to vote no using fear of claims made of that faith. So you really are talking utter nonsense.

Jesus would not vote yes at all...lol...

of course they are under pressure the world keeps telling us we must accept gays are normal..

they have chose to turn against their faith and that is their choice...

Really?
Show me his views where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality.

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Jesus would not vote yes at all...lol...

of course they are under pressure the world keeps telling us we must accept gays are normal..

they have chose to turn against their faith and that is their choice...

Really?
Show me his views where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality.

so no homosexual will enter the kingdom of heaven, no man will lay with a man as a woman, adam and eve, one man shall take one woman...

or are you going with the idea the word homosexual was invented then...

the bible is clear about gays...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Really?
Show me his views where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality.

so no homosexual will enter the kingdom of heaven, no man will lay with a man as a woman, adam and eve, one man shall take one woman...

or are you going with the idea the word homosexual was invented then...

the bible is clear about gays...

Really?
Show me the views of Jesus where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
so no homosexual will enter the kingdom of heaven, no man will lay with a man as a woman, adam and eve, one man shall take one woman...

or are you going with the idea the word homosexual was invented then...

the bible is clear about gays...

Really?
Show me the views of Jesus where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

I just have but you are probably to dim too see it...

have you heard of the trinity, probably not but think about it...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Really?
Show me the views of Jesus where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

I just have but you are probably to dim too see it...

have you heard of the trinity, probably not but think about it...

I have not seen a single verse from you where Jesus the man condemns homosexuality.
In fact we see Jesus even go against commands from the Old Testament when he stops a woman from being stoned to death for adultery, showing how very much Jesus was a progressive, no matter what mumbo jumbo interpretation of the texts you lay to claim on this.

Show me where Jesus condemns homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
I just have but you are probably to dim too see it...

have you heard of the trinity, probably not but think about it...

I have not seen a single verse from you where Jesus the man condemns homosexuality.
In fact we see Jesus even go against commands from the Old Testament when he stops a woman from being stoned to death for adultery, showing how very much Jesus was a progressive, no matter what mumbo jumbo interpretation of the texts you lay to claim on this.

Show me where Jesus condemns homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

oh dear i had a feeling you were to dim too understand, here's a hint the word says nothing was made that was not made through Jesus... any bells yet, a light come on...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

I have not seen a single verse from you where Jesus the man condemns homosexuality.
In fact we see Jesus even go against commands from the Old Testament when he stops a woman from being stoned to death for adultery, showing how very much Jesus was a progressive, no matter what mumbo jumbo interpretation of the texts you lay to claim on this.

Show me where Jesus condemns homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

oh dear i had a feeling you were to dim too understand, here's a hint the word says nothing was made that was not made through Jesus... any bells yet, a light come on...

Yes I understand how you make things up and interpret views of Jesus, but again you have posted no verse where Jesus condemns homosexuality and as seen he even stops a woman from being stoned to death, going against a law from the Torah. That shows progression by Jesus. Your interpretations count for didley, they are your views only.


Show me his views where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
oh dear i had a feeling you were to dim too understand, here's a hint the word says nothing was made that was not made through Jesus... any bells yet, a light come on...

Yes I understand how you make things up and interpret views of Jesus, but again you have posted no verse where Jesus condemns homosexuality and as seen he even stops a woman from being stoned to death, going against a law from the Torah. That shows progression by Jesus. Your interpretations count for didley, they are your views only.


Show me his views where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

so you think I made the trinity up... wow now that's pretty good , it's been around a bit longer than me...

ok try John chapter 5 vs 30, i take it you can read...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Yes I understand how you make things up and interpret views of Jesus, but again you have posted no verse where Jesus condemns homosexuality and as seen he even stops a woman from being stoned to death, going against a law from the Torah. That shows progression by Jesus. Your interpretations count for didley, they are your views only.


Show me his views where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

so you think I made the trinity up... wow now that's pretty good , it's been around a bit longer than me...

ok try John chapter 5 vs 30, i take it you can read...

Yes I know the verse, that is not Jesus condemning homosexuality:

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.


Says nothing about homosexuality and again Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned to death a direct command found in the Torah, so that puts paid to your poor interpretations, because clearly Jesus came to change the faith, of which he certainly did by excepting gentiles for one.

Show me his views where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
so you think I made the trinity up... wow now that's pretty good , it's been around a bit longer than me...

ok try John chapter 5 vs 30, i take it you can read...

Yes I know the verse, that is not Jesus condemning homosexuality:

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.


Says nothing about homosexuality and again Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned to death a direct command found in the Torah, so that puts paid to your poor interpretations, because clearly Jesus came to change the faith, of which he certainly did by excepting gentiles for one.

Show me his views where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

so what does it say???

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Yes I know the verse, that is not Jesus condemning homosexuality:

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.


Says nothing about homosexuality and again Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned to death a direct command found in the Torah, so that puts paid to your poor interpretations, because clearly Jesus came to change the faith, of which he certainly did by excepting gentiles for one.

Show me his views where he condemn homosexuality??
They have not turned against heir faith if Jesus never condemned homosexuality

so what does it say???

Can you not read?
So again clearly Jesus was progressive and changed previous laws and commands and he never condemned homosexuality as well, which you have failed to show a single verse to state i he did.

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
so what does it say???

Can you not read?
So again clearly Jesus was progressive and changed previous laws and commands and he never condemned homosexuality as well, which you have failed to show a single verse to state i he did.

so you do not know the verse and how would you as you have never read the bible....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Can you not read?
So again clearly Jesus was progressive and changed previous laws and commands and he never condemned homosexuality as well, which you have failed to show a single verse to state i he did.

so you do not know the verse and how would you as you have never read the bible....

Clearly I have read the bible as you cannot even place into context the full passage of what Jesus said in Chapter 5 of John:

Clearly you are just wasting my time stalling with poor excuses and no evidence, seriously crawl away as you seriously are pathetic.

Game over

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
so you do not know the verse and how would you as you have never read the bible....

Clearly I have read the bible as you cannot even place into context the full passage of what Jesus said in Chapter 5 of John:

Clearly you are just wasting my time stalling with poor excuses and no evidence, seriously crawl away as you seriously are pathetic.

Game over

lol ...clearly you have not read it, clearly you are lying please put the scripture I gave you in context and tell me what it means...

if you can.....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Clearly I have read the bible as you cannot even place into context the full passage of what Jesus said in Chapter 5 of John:

Clearly you are just wasting my time stalling with poor excuses and no evidence, seriously crawl away as you seriously are pathetic.

Game over

lol ...clearly you have not read it, clearly you are lying please put the scripture I gave you in context and tell me what it means...

if you can.....

In context?
PMSL you mean to your view of how you interpret that text.
I just proved you are clueless and have no verse to back up your claims, even using this one is negated when as shown how Jesus changed and was progressive all of which you avoid. Hence why the bible constantly contradicts.
Again stop wasting my time, you complete immature child, you know only what other born again idiots haven brainwashed you with on Christianity. The whole concept of Christianity is based on interpretations, unless of course you now think you speak for this mythical God?

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
lol ...clearly you have not read it, clearly you are lying please put the scripture I gave you in context and tell me what it means...

if you can.....

In context?
PMSL you mean to your view of how you interpret that text.
I just proved you are clueless and have no verse to back up your claims, even using this one is negated when as shown how Jesus changed and was progressive all of which you avoid. Hence why the bible constantly contradicts.
Again stop wasting my time, you complete immature child, you know only what other born again idiots haven brainwashed you with on Christianity. The whole concept of Christianity is based on interpretations, unless of course you now think you speak for this mythical God?

the very funny part of this is you said you read it and claimed I took it out of context, if yu read it what context do you put it in but alas you cannot as you have never read it but to cover your lies and obvious stupidity you go back to the idea of slagging of this mythical god that you have been claiming the catholics have not gone against because Jesus did not speak against homosexuality..

you are a strange one didge....

if you ever want towork out the scripture in john have a look and see... unless you are afraid of what you will find...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



In context?
PMSL you mean to your view of how you interpret that text.
I just proved you are clueless and have no verse to back up your claims, even using this one is negated when as shown how Jesus changed and was progressive all of which you avoid. Hence why the bible constantly contradicts.
Again stop wasting my time, you complete immature child, you know only what other born again idiots haven brainwashed you with on Christianity. The whole concept of Christianity is based on interpretations, unless of course you now think you speak for this mythical God?

the very funny part of this is you said you read it and claimed I took it out of context, if yu read it what context do you put it in but alas you cannot as you have never read it but to cover your lies and obvious stupidity you go back to the idea of slagging of this mythical god that you have been claiming the catholics have not gone against because Jesus did not speak against homosexuality..

you are a strange one didge....

if you ever want towork out the scripture in john have a look and see... unless you are afraid of what you will find...

Not strange mate, just I understand how born again invent things onto Christianity
See again you claim to say you understand and fail to take on from the very same Gospel Jesus going against the law of the Torah thus changing things. At every turn Jesus is a progressive, which I have easily proven from the texts, which does not need any interpretation which you try to make on that episode of the woman saved from the stoning. You see I see merit in some of his teachings but not the Pauline Christianity which developed after.

Again no where did Jesus condemn homosexuality and you have not provided a single verse to show that he did. Like I say you are like an immature child who ignores  all evidence, that is your issue not mine

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
the very funny part of this is you said you read it and claimed I took it out of context, if yu read it what context do you put it in but alas you cannot as you have never read it but to cover your lies and obvious stupidity you go back to the idea of slagging of this mythical god that you have been claiming the catholics have not gone against because Jesus did not speak against homosexuality..

you are a strange one didge....

if you ever want towork out the scripture in john have a look and see... unless you are afraid of what you will find...

Not strange mate, just I understand how born again invent things onto Christianity
See again you claim to say you understand and fail to take on from the very same Gospel Jesus going against the law of the Torah thus changing things. At every turn Jesus is a progressive, which I have easily proven from the texts, which does not need any interpretation which you try to make on that episode of the woman saved from the stoning. You see I see merit in some of his teachings but not the Pauline Christianity which developed after.

Again no where did Jesus condemn homosexuality and you have not provided a single verse to show that he did. Like I say you are like an immature child who ignores  all evidence, that is your issue not mine

you understand nothing that much is clear, does the bible mention being "born Again", what does it say about it..??
every  thing I believe is in the bible, it is that simple.
you have proven nothing, Jesus says he can only do what the father has sent him to do, you couldnlt even work out Jesus came to fulfill the law...lol

I showed you how Jesus showed Grace through the stoning but you are to dumb too see that, catholics are usually very lawful people, i sat usually as I know some who are not..

Again Jesus is God, God is Jesus, Jesus can only do what God says he can do, God condemns homosexuality...end of...

if this shatters your illusions of being a gay Christian I'm sorry..

Again you just offer your views and interpretations on the bible, that does not mean you are right and hence your failings here.
There never was a verse by Jesus condemning Homosexuality but you poorly try to use others to invent something he never did. That is why religion can be so bad how some try to make something fit which just does not fit. Jesus saves a woman condemned by law in the Torah, she had committed adultery, he stopped those about to kill her and also forgave her, letting her go free. That is progression and Jesus advocating for forgiveness over death itself.

All the best but as seen you just keep coming outwith more feeble excuses to post the verses I asked for.

Laters

Belatucadros wrote:Again you just offer your views and interpretations on the bible, that does not mean you are right and hence your failings here.
There never was a verse by Jesus condemning Homosexuality but you poorly try to use others to invent something he never did. That is why religion can be so bad how some try to make something fit which just does not fit. Jesus saves a woman condemned by law in the Torah, she had committed adultery, he stopped those about to kill her and also forgave her, letting her go free. That is progression and Jesus advocating for forgiveness over death itself.

All the best but as seen you just keep coming outwith more feeble excuses to post the verses I asked for.

Laters

my views, have you read or heard about the trinity...it's quite a big topic really...

no it is jesus bringing Grace, seh deserved by law ro bestined to death but by Grace, undeserved favour she was alowed to live.. grace is what Jesus came to gring through fulfilment of the law...
 the bible condemns homosexuality, the bible is the word of God, Jesus is the word of God it says so in John...

none of my making it is the bible...

might as well beleive in the lord of the rings

at least that is consistant......(in a literary sense)

darknessss wrote:might as well beleive in the lord of the rings

at least that is consistant......(in a literary sense)

we may as well believe the science version of the origins of life, oh wait it doesn't have one but it does know it wasn't God...

errm...actually no....only a few "more vocal" ones say that

most would say

"have doubts" that it was a god
and quite a few "would not in the end be at all surprised" if it was a god

but whether it was "your god" or not is a different matter

darknessss wrote:errm...actually no....only a few  "more vocal" ones say that

most would say

"have doubts" that it was a god
and quite a few "would not in the end be at all surprised" if it was a god

but whether it was "your god" or not is a different matter

so you are now saying the majority of scientist would say god or a god created life?? really

I think you may be telling porkies...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

darknessss wrote:errm...actually no....only a few  "more vocal" ones say that

most would say

"have doubts" that it was a god
and quite a few "would not in the end be at all surprised" if it was a god

but whether it was "your god" or not is a different matter

so you are now saying the majority of scientist would say god or a god created life?? really

I think you may be telling porkies...

You do realise Victor is no atheist?
Far from it.

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
so you are now saying the majority of scientist would say god or a god created life?? really

I think you may be telling porkies...

You do realise Victor is no atheist?
Far from it.

you do realise I couldn't care less if victor was the pope??

what you or anyone else believes has no effect on what I believe.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


You do realise Victor is no atheist?
Far from it.

you do realise I couldn't care less if victor was the pope??

what you or anyone else believes has no effect on what I believe.

Temper, temper HF
Just pointing out you were going off a fruitless tangent which would have ended with yet more egg on your face. Which clearly you recognized by your last comments by deflecting again.

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
you do realise I couldn't care less if victor was the pope??

what you or anyone else believes has no effect on what I believe.

Temper, temper HF
Just pointing out you were going off a fruitless tangent which would have ended with yet more egg on your face. Which clearly you recognized by your last comments by deflecting again.

lol i don't have problem with temper, well not anymore, Praise the lord...

and as you are obviously an expert on egg on the face i will ignore your warning...

wasn't victor the dress wearing, dancing, bell ringing shaman type or was that another freak..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

darknessss wrote:errm...actually no....only a few  "more vocal" ones say that

most would say

"have doubts" that it was a god
and quite a few "would not in the end be at all surprised" if it was a god

but whether it was "your god" or not is a different matter

so you are now saying the majority of scientist would say god or a god created life?? really

I think you may be telling porkies...

erm no...I'm not saying that at all

I'm saying that "most scientists" are in fact rather open minded about things....
that their work leads then to beleive that in fact they doubt (to varying degrees) that there is a god
and some whilst doubting, would still be unsurprised if there was a god

since in fact there is NO body of evidence that actually says definatively that a god of some sort did or indeed did NOT create life....

you forget one of the first priciples of philosophy


YOU CANNOT PROVE NON EXISTANCE...of anything

you can merely show an increasingly great chance of something being unlikely.....

at which point you personaly say ok...thats proof enough for me is up to you.....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Temper, temper HF
Just pointing out you were going off a fruitless tangent which would have ended with yet more egg on your face. Which clearly you recognized by your last comments by deflecting again.

lol i don't have problem with temper, well not anymore, Praise the lord...

and as you are obviously an expert on egg on the face i will ignore your warning...

Thank you for proving my point again as you do not even deny you diverted knowing full well you were on a road to nothing on your point of Victors beliefs after I saved you from further embarrassment.You should be thanking me, as I denied Victor the coup de grace, which would have made you look iinfinitely more stupid, if I did not come in and save you.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:wasn't victor the dress wearing, dancing, bell ringing shaman type or was that another freak..

no, but then again I'm not the suit wearing, fraudulent cure pedalling, lie propagating freak either.......

I guess the mask of civility has slipped from HF once again

always happens once he is shown wrong....


ah well so be it......

darknessss wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:wasn't victor the dress wearing, dancing, bell ringing shaman type or was that another freak..

no, but then again I'm not the suit wearing, fraudulent cure pedalling, lie propagating freak either.......

suit wearing is right, I make my money out of telecommunications and i leave the lies to didge...lol

so who was the shaman?? i forget..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

darknessss wrote:

no, but then again I'm not the suit wearing, fraudulent cure pedalling, lie propagating freak either.......

suit wearing is right, I make my money out of telecommunications and i leave the lies to didge...lol

so who was the shaman?? i forget..

Pride

Pride[edit]

Main article: Pride

In almost every list, pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris (Greek), is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and the source of the others. It is identified as believing that one is essentially better than others, failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, and excessive admiration of the personal self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God); it also includes vainglory (Latin, vanagloria) which is unjustified boasting. Dante's definition of pride was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour". In Jacob Bidermann's medieval miracle play,Cenodoxus, pride is the deadliest of all the sins and leads directly to the damnation of the titulary famed Parisian doctor. In perhaps the best-known example, the story of Lucifer, pride (his desire to compete with God) was what caused his fall from Heaven, and his resultant transformation into Satan. In Dante's Divine Comedy, the penitents are burdened with stone slabs on their necks which force them to keep their heads bowed.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Pride

you ...make your money out of telecoms....

I bet you are a salesman....

or a board monkey.......

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
suit wearing is right, I make my money out of telecommunications and i leave the lies to didge...lol

so who was the shaman?? i forget..

Pride

Pride[edit]

Main article: Pride

Building the Tower of Babel was, for Dante, an example of pride. Painting byPieter Brueghel the Elder

In almost every list, pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris (Greek), is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and the source of the others. It is identified as believing that one is essentially better than others, failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, and excessive admiration of the personal self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God); it also includes vainglory (Latin, vanagloria) which is unjustified boasting. Dante's definition of pride was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour". In Jacob Bidermann's medieval miracle play,Cenodoxus, pride is the deadliest of all the sins and leads directly to the damnation of the titulary famed Parisian doctor. In perhaps the best-known example, the story of Lucifer, pride (his desire to compete with God) was what caused his fall from Heaven, and his resultant transformation into Satan. In Dante's Divine Comedy, the penitents are burdened with stone slabs on their necks which force them to keep their heads bowed.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Pride

I don't remember any posters called pride, are you sure they were the shaman..?

darknessss wrote:you ...make your money out of telecoms....

I bet you are a salesman....

or a board monkey.......

I never knew they had monkey's on a board of directors, I always thought it was wolves in sheep's clothing?
Or am I being unkind to wolves to associate them with such cads?

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Pride

Pride[edit]

Main article: Pride

Building the Tower of Babel was, for Dante, an example of pride. Painting byPieter Brueghel the Elder

In almost every list, pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris (Greek), is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and the source of the others. It is identified as believing that one is essentially better than others, failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, and excessive admiration of the personal self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God); it also includes vainglory (Latin, vanagloria) which is unjustified boasting. Dante's definition of pride was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour". In Jacob Bidermann's medieval miracle play,Cenodoxus, pride is the deadliest of all the sins and leads directly to the damnation of the titulary famed Parisian doctor. In perhaps the best-known example, the story of Lucifer, pride (his desire to compete with God) was what caused his fall from Heaven, and his resultant transformation into Satan. In Dante's Divine Comedy, the penitents are burdened with stone slabs on their necks which force them to keep their heads bowed.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Pride

I don't remember any posters called pride, are you sure they were the shaman..?

Just going off your pride in your salary and work.
Is very much at odds with your faith

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
I don't remember any posters called pride, are you sure they were the shaman..?

Just going off your pride in your salary and work.
Is very much at odds with your faith

pride, I think you are mistaken, they were just facts if i earned my money as a bin man i would say the same, how you earn your money and what you wear while earning that money does not define you as a person even though society says otherwise..

a board monky is a low paid unskilled "technician" whos job is merely to change boards in a failed piece of kit untill it works again.

they have no ability to repair at component level and no understanding of how anything works.
they lack both the menatal acuity to diagnose problems and the physical dexterity to carry out the repair

they are the lowest order on the food chain in the electronics industry....

they tend to be of the class of lesser human that reads FHM and watches jeremy Kyle
and tends to think whatever the Mail tells them to.......

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Just going off your pride in your salary and work.
Is very much at odds with your faith

pride, I think you are mistaken, they were just facts if i earned my money as a bin man i would say the same, how you earn your money and what you wear while earning that money does not define you as a person even though society says otherwise..

Way too much pride.
You fail to understand what pride is.
There should be no pride when looking at what you have done in your Christianity, as your God decides whether it was good, noble etc. By you proving beyond doubt pride, you place yourself above your own God.
As a Christian, you have no need of pride, yet constantly express pride.
You would be seen as disapointing by Jesus for that

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
pride, I think you are mistaken, they were just facts if i earned my money as a bin man i would say the same, how you earn your money and what you wear while earning that money does not define you as a person even though society says otherwise..

Way too much pride.
You fail to understand what pride is.
There should be no pride when looking at what you have done in your Christianity, as your God decides whether it was good, noble etc. By you proving beyond doubt pride, you place yourself above your own God.
As a Christian, you have no need of pride, yet constantly express pride.
You would be seen as disapointing by Jesus for that

Again you are mistaken, I have said many times if my salvation depended on my actions even 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000001 %, I would mess it up.
My salvation is entirely through the work of Jesus.
Praise the Lord.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Way too much pride.
You fail to understand what pride is.
There should be no pride when looking at what you have done in your Christianity, as your God decides whether it was good, noble etc. By you proving beyond doubt pride, you place yourself above your own God.
As a Christian, you have no need of pride, yet constantly express pride.
You would be seen as disapointing by Jesus for that

Again you are mistaken, I have said many times if my salvation depended on my actions even 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %, I would mess it up.
My salvation is entirely through the work of Jesus.
Praise the Lord.

How am I wrong when you just tries to decide how God would judge you?
That is you believing you are better than God to decide
You express pride and you know it, hence your deflective reply.
Now is when I know the bible better than you.