The end of the Catholic Church in Ireland ??

seamus · 20-02-2008 4:56pm

djpbarry wrote: »

But is that a good thing? Should any organisation not seek to modernise itself?

Not necessarily. If an organisation's M.O. is evangelism and to seek to get others to join it, then it should do what works. If modernising causes it to lose followers, then why would it modernise?

cornbb · 20-02-2008 5:08pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The opposite is what actually happens. As churches move to what you term an enlightened state of acceptance of homosexualitry, attendance tails right off and the church becomes very irrelevant.

The catholic church is rapidly becoming irrelevant regardless, the way I see it. I can't back this up with facts and figures but it seems to me that one of the obvious reasons this is happening is because people wish to distance themselves from stances that are now considered to be divisive, homophobic, misogynistic, sectarian, etc etc...

Churches that stay true to Biblical teaching they tend to thrive and increase in attendance.

The catholic church has never stuck to a static, literal teaching of the bible. Its teachings could be described as an interpretation of the bible, which is reasonable. These teachings have been revised to keep up with the rest of the world, scientific discoveries etc. Obvious example: creationism is no longer preached by the catholic church. Why would they continue to preach the wrongs of homosexuality ad infinitum when the rest of the world has moved on?

You refer to churches whose attendances have increased due to them not changing their old ways of thinking. Could you provide me with an example? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm suspecting these would be smaller, more marginal churches which are not omnipresent and hugely influential in entire societies, like the catholic church has been in Ireland?

I'm Ok with the separation of state from any institution be it religious or secular.

I'm glad you agree with that.

djpbarry · 20-02-2008 5:12pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It was accepted in prior cultures that have come and gone, it isn't new to our modern world.

Precisely. The argument has been made that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong. I have argued, as have others, that homosexuality is nothing new and that it was religious orders who decided that it was wrong and inherently evil, because God said so, and it is from this that the modern stigma originates.

seamus wrote: »

If an organisation's M.O. is evangelism and to seek to get others to join it, then it should do what works. If modernising causes it to lose followers, then why would it modernise?

IF modernising caused it to lose followers, then no, I don't suppose it would want to go down that road. However, no organisation is perfect - there is always room for improvement.

seamus · 20-02-2008 5:18pm

IF modernising caused it to lose followers, then no, I don't suppose it would want to go down that road. However, no organisation is perfect - there is always room for improvement.

Except of course, if you believe you were commissioned by God?

djpbarry · 21-02-2008 1:01pm

Found an article in today's Indo on the subject - it seems a severe drop in the numbers of the rank-and-file is expected in the near future.

BrianCalgary · 21-02-2008 3:59pm

cornbb wrote: »

The catholic church is rapidly becoming irrelevant regardless, the way I see it. I can't back this up with facts and figures but it seems to me that one of the obvious reasons this is happening is because people wish to distance themselves from stances that are now considered to be divisive, homophobic, misogynistic, sectarian, etc etc....

The older mainstream denominations in Europe are becoming less relevant as people leave them. Part of the reason is that they were so tied to the state throughout their history and not just theological reasons. That is the view of an outsider.

cornbb wrote: »

Obvious example: creationism is no longer preached by the catholic church. Why would they continue to preach the wrongs of homosexuality ad infinitum when the rest of the world has moved on?.

The bible is very clear on its condemnation of adultery and fornication as well as bodily abuse, stealing, murdering, etc, etc. Evolution and homosexuality are vastly different issues.

cornbb wrote: »

You refer to churches whose attendances have increased due to them not changing their old ways of thinking. Could you provide me with an example? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm suspecting these would be smaller, more marginal churches which are not omnipresent and hugely influential in entire societies, like the catholic church has been in Ireland?
.

The United Church of Canada was the largest denomination in Canada, until they decided that homosexuality was quite OK, amongst other theological liberal moves, such as Jesus wasn't really God. The United church's attendance declined rapidly as poeple left. Those that the church thought they would appeal to never did come and stay.

The Anglican church did the same, I think they were the second largest protestant denomination and they are pretty irrelevant as a denomination today.

Whereas teh denominations that are staying true to scripture are growing.

hairyheretic · 21-02-2008 4:13pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The United Church of Canada was the largest denomination in Canada, until they decided that homosexuality was quite OK, amongst other theological liberal moves, such as Jesus wasn't really God. The United church's attendance declined rapidly as poeple left. Those that the church thought they would appeal to never did come and stay.

I would suspect the 'Jesus wasn't really God' thing contributed more than the 'homosexuality was quite OK' one there.

djpbarry · 21-02-2008 4:17pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The United Church of Canada was the largest denomination in Canada, until they decided that homosexuality was quite OK, amongst other theological liberal moves, such as Jesus wasn't really God. The United church's attendance declined rapidly as poeple left. Those that the church thought they would appeal to never did come and stay.

The Anglican church did the same, I think they were the second largest protestant denomination and they are pretty irrelevant as a denomination today.

According to the 2001 census, the United Church and the Anglican Church are by far the two largest Protestant denominations in Canada.

BrianCalgary · 21-02-2008 5:45pm

hairyheretic wrote: »

I would suspect the 'Jesus wasn't really God' thing contributed more than the 'homosexuality was quite OK' one there.

The point is that the United church strayed from Biblical teaching, no matter what the issue.

cornbb · 21-02-2008 9:52pm

The bible is very clear on its condemnation of adultery and fornication as well as bodily abuse, stealing, murdering, etc, etc. Evolution and homosexuality are vastly different issues.

Evolution is not a vastly different issue. When taken literally, the bible is also quite clear on how the earth was created. Except its never taken literally - revisionism and doublethink have made the catholic church conveniently forget about evolution. Would you not agree that many churches are quite selective on what parts of the bible are "quite clear" and what parts are "interpreted"?

The United Church of Canada was the largest denomination in Canada, until they decided that homosexuality was quite OK, amongst other theological liberal moves, such as Jesus wasn't really God. The United church's attendance declined rapidly as poeple left. Those that the church thought they would appeal to never did come and stay.

People are leaving the catholic church and many other more traditionalist churches in droves too, so I would wholly disagree that there is a correlation between liberalisation of religion and dropping attendance. There's no evidence of that.

The point is that the United church strayed from Biblical teaching, no matter what the issue.

I'd love if you could point out a church that has not "strayed from biblical teaching", apart from the tiny minority of hardcore fundamentalists which have alienated themselves from mainstream christianity. As I have pointed out, interpretations of the bible evolve (no pun intended) to suit the times and to suit the church.

BrianCalgary · 21-02-2008 10:44pm

cornbb wrote: »

Evolution is not a vastly different issue. When taken literally, the bible is also quite clear on how the earth was created. Except its never taken literally - revisionism and doublethink have made the catholic church conveniently forget about evolution. Would you not agree that many churches are quite selective on what parts of the bible are "quite clear" and what parts are "interpreted"? .

Evolution is a science, the Bible is not a science book. Evolutionary belief is not a fundamental belief of Christianity.

The others mentioned are morals, of which teh Bible is, a moral compass, and the Bible claims authority on this and Christianity world include it into their fundamental belief system.

cornbb wrote: »

People are leaving the catholic church and many other more traditionalist churches in droves too, so I would wholly disagree that there is a correlation between liberalisation of religion and dropping attendance. There's no evidence of that..

Not here. North America and Europe are quite different in thei rchurch history. In Europe people ar eleaving the traditional church of their country in droves. In Canada Catholic church attendance is actually up except in Quebec where the realtionship between church and state is very much akin to that in Europe.

You can disagree all you like but church attendance shows otherwise. The survey you cited doesn;t give church attendance only what people call themselves which is could be two vastly different numbers.

cornbb wrote: »

I'd love if you could point out a church that has not "strayed from biblical teaching", apart from the tiny minority of hardcore fundamentalists which have alienated themselves from mainstream christianity. As I have pointed out, interpretations of the bible evolve (no pun intended) to suit the times and to suit the church.

We can look at the Christian and Missionary Alliance church of which I am a member. As well as Baptist.

In my own city I know of no independant churches that have alienated themselves from mainstream Christianity that are not in a position of either growth or stability.

My knowledge of the evangelical church in Ireland is that it is growing, they are not hardcore fundamentalist churches, they stick to sound biblical teachings and they are not tiny nor the minority.

robindch · 06-03-2008 12:52am

Young Catholic wrote: »

You might need to watch this video material
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seZrX5qu4gM

Funny that; the same chap turns up twice in once month; first time, it's a recommendation, the second time, perhaps not.

Turns out that the Bishop Williamson is a virulent anti-semite who's endorsed the fraudulent Czarist "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as well as 9/11 denialism and no doubt much else. More from the Catholic Herald here:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000226.html

santing · 06-03-2008 10:41pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Evolution is a science, the Bible is not a science book. Evolutionary belief is not a fundamental belief of Christianity.

The others mentioned are morals, of which teh Bible is, a moral compass, and the Bible claims authority on this and Christianity world include it into their fundamental belief system.

BrianCalgary does not science / evolution provide us with a framework of morals too? Is not the Biblical "moral compass" based on the "Creation - Fall - Redemption" theme?

Science/evolution does not give us a reason for living, or a purpose. We are just what we are, and always being improved on. There is no good or bad in this, but just the survival of the bullies.

If you start with the scientific/evolutionary worldview, at which station can you join the train for the Christian Moral Compas? Where do they meet?

BrianCalgary · 07-03-2008 4:24pm

santing wrote: »

BrianCalgary does not science / evolution provide us with a framework of morals too? Is not the Biblical "moral compass" based on the "Creation - Fall - Redemption" theme??

I dont think that science / evolution does provide us with a frameowkr of morals. Whereas Christianity does, via God's word in His book.

santing wrote: »

Science/evolution does not give us a reason for living, or a purpose. We are just what we are, and always being improved on. There is no good or bad in this, but just the survival of the bullies.?

Personally I dont see an improvement in humans. The dedds we edxact against one another have remained constatnt throughout history, just the toys we use are more sophisticated.

santing wrote: »

If you start with the scientific/evolutionary worldview, at which station can you join the train for the Christian Moral Compas? Where do they meet?

I dont quite get this?

santing · 07-03-2008 10:54pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I dont think that science / evolution does provide us with a frameowkr of morals. Whereas Christianity does, via God's word in His book.

I think Science & Evolution do provide us with an excellent framework of morals - except we don't like this framework! It teaches that all life is a struggle for supremacy, and every individual takes part in it. It teaches that in this struggle weaker species and weaker individuals are eliminated to make place for better adapted, evolved, individuals and species.
It teaches that there isn't really good or bad, everything is just part of the movement called evolving... We should just accept things as they are, and fight for the survival of ourselves and our own (genes). The only bad thing one could think of is opposing "Mother Nature" by protecting the weak.

This moral framework is so opposite to the Christian worldview, that it is impossible imho to combine them. That was the reference in my last sentence in my previous post. If we start out with evolution, where/when/how can we switch over to Christianity?

robindch · 07-03-2008 11:32pm

santing wrote: »

I think Science & Evolution do provide us with an excellent framework of morals - except we don't like this framework! It teaches that in this struggle weaker species and weaker individuals are eliminated to make place for better adapted, evolved, individuals and species.

Evolution "teaches" no such thing. Who on earth told you that?

.

santing · 08-03-2008 1:11am

robindch wrote: »

Evolution "teaches" no such thing. Who on earth told you that?

What about: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Charles Darwin 1859

robindch · 08-03-2008 1:17am

Oops -- the first sentence of your post should have been in my quote of your text. Apologies and edited.

Where does Darwin say that evolution is a moral framework?

santing · 08-03-2008 2:14am

robindch wrote: »

Where does Darwin say that evolution is a moral framework?

OK, he doesn't use the exact words, but read his books... He states that morality is acquired through evolution. Here another quote:

Darwin's Descent of Man wrote:

In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings, which impel other animals to live in a body... They would have felt uneasy when separated from their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love; they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid in attack or defence. All this implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity and courage. Such social qualities... were no doubt acquired... through natural selection, aided by inherited habit [note the Lamarckian idea here]. When two tribes... came into competition, if... the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. (p. 199)

The end of the Catholic Church in Ireland ??

Comments