The end of the Catholic Church in Ireland ??

djpbarry · 19-02-2008 3:14pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Nobody has found a gay gene.

Your sarcasm aside, most scientists would agree that sexual orientation is the result of complex interactions of environmental, cognitive/psychological and biological factors.

kelly1 wrote: »

OK so you don't believe the word of God. That's your business.

No, I don't, but that's irrelevant. You maintain that the CC is not hateful, yet it is quite apparent that you have issues with homosexuals and you use The Bible to justify this.

kelly1 wrote: »

If you did actually have a good sense of morality, you would condemn buggery, fisting, feltching and other disgusting sexual acts!

What people do in their own time is their business. If it's not hurting anyone and making someone happy, then I don't see how it can be all that bad.

kelly1 wrote: »

The homosexual lifestyle mostly involves one night stands - not many homosexuals are in long term relationships in fact.

Even if this ridiculous generalisation was any way near true, it is still irrelevant.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why can't I marry a sheep?

You can if you want - I don't care

cornbb · 19-02-2008 3:15pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't hate anyone. I don't go around telling others how to live.

You could have fooled me.

I tried watching Brokeback Mountain once and I had to turn it off, I felt nauseous.

Your dislike of homosexuality and the effect it has on you is your own problem, that doesn't make homosexuality a problem for society

The Church does not preach hatred and it's wrong of you to say so.

However the church would like to dress up its teachings, they do incite hatred. This results in the oppression of minorities. This is true of all major religions. While the whole "love thy neighbour" thing is a good teaching, its pretty obvious to everyone in this world that we need to love our neighbours in order to function and improve ourselves as a civilisation.

It teaches that we should hate sin and love the sinner.

Most homosexual "sinners" don't care for your "love" and would rather you kept your beliefs to yourself, I'm sure. I'm not hearing much love for sinners in your outlook here tbh.

djpbarry · 19-02-2008 3:17pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't go around telling others how to live.

You've spent a fair chunk of this thread telling homosexuals that what they're doing is evil - I think that falls into the "telling other how they should be living" category.

kelly1 wrote: »

I tried watching Brokeback Mountain once and I had to turn it off, I felt nauseous.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of chick-flicks myself - there wasn't nearly enough fisting and felching.

robindch · 19-02-2008 3:27pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't go around telling others how to live.

kelly1 wrote: »

If you did actually have a good sense of morality, you would condemn buggery, fisting, feltching and other disgusting sexual acts!

Hmm.... consistency?

Zombrex · 19-02-2008 3:59pm

kelly1 wrote: »

The homosexual lifestyle mostly involves one night stands - not many homosexuals are in long term relationships in fact.

Ah yes, nothing like another gay bashing myth from the Christians

Seriously though, that isn't actually true.

Relationship patterns of homosexuals (both gay men and lesbians) are pretty much similar to relationship patterns of heterosexuals, which younger homosexuals having more shorter relationships while settling down into long term relationships when they get older.

The rate of break up of homosexual couples who have been together longer than 10 years is something like 4%, which is a lot less that hetersexual couples

Bduffman · 19-02-2008 4:18pm

kelly1 wrote: »

If you did actually have a good sense of morality, you would condemn buggery, fisting, feltching and other disgusting sexual acts! The homosexual lifestyle mostly involves one night stands - not many homosexuals are in long term relationships in fact.

I think that just proves a previous posters point about the obsession catholics have with sex. You do seem very knowledgeable about these things.
What two consenting adults do in private have nothing to do with you or anyone else as long as no harm is being done. Get your priorities right.

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 4:21pm

cornbb wrote: »

"Sin" is pure fantasy, sin is something that was invented by a group of men in the last few thousand years.

Sadly many people believe this to be true. I suppose Jesus died for nothing, did He?

cornbb wrote: »

Your belief that homosexuality is a sin causes no good in the world, it incites hatred and ignorance.

It's not the belief that's wrong. It's people treatment of homosexuals that's wrong.

cornbb wrote: »

Homosexuality is different. That is all. Murder, rape, incest, theft etc all hurt people and cause harm to society. What harm does homosexuality cause? I'm talking about harm in reality, harm done to third parties, not some made-up harm done to those who are merely offended by it.

The harm done is invisible. It destroys grace in the soul.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

This post is total lunacy. Seriously what age are you? Have you ever been lucky enough to have fallen in love with somebody? Now imagine that somebody is the same sex as you. How on earth does that lead to justifying bestiality or sexual relations with a parent of sibling or child?

I'm married to the woman I fell in love with and I have three children and I'm 38 years old. The point I'm making is where do you draw the line? Is consenting sex between a father and an adult daughter acceptable or between two adult sisters? Do you think sex with an animal is OK? Is it right for a man to have several wives? Is right and wrong down to a personal opinion?

djpbarry · 19-02-2008 4:29pm

kelly1 wrote: »

It's people treatment of homosexuals that's wrong.

So what would you do with homosexuals if you were in charge?

kelly1 wrote: »

The point I'm making is where do you draw the line? Is consenting sex between a father and an adult daughter acceptable or between two adult sisters?

The main reason incest is socially unacceptable is to protect the gene pool from excessive damage by inbreeding.

I can't believe you're comparing homosexuality with incest. :rolleyes:

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 4:31pm

Bduffman wrote: »

I think that just proves a previous posters point about the obsession catholics have with sex. You do seem very knowledgeable about these things.
What two consenting adults do in private have nothing to do with you or anyone else as long as no harm is being done. Get your priorities right.

You're right, it's none of my business. That doesn't mean that I can't express my views on the general sinfulness of homosexual acts. People keep saying that no harm is done but in fact the worst possible harm is being done. As I said previously grave sin destroys grace in the soul and makes it fit only for Hell. Of course sins can be forgiven is someone repents and turns back to God.

cornbb · 19-02-2008 4:35pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Sadly many people believe this to be true. I suppose Jesus died for nothing, did He?

Yup, I'd say an awful lot of religious fanatics have died for nothing throughout history.

It's not the belief that's wrong. It's people treatment of homosexuals that's wrong.

Could you clarify that by explaining whether you think its wrong that homosexuals should be treated as "filthy" and "disgusting" things, or wrong that they should be treated as human beings? If you mean the former, then maybe you should think about what sort of attitudes and teachings lead to homosexuals being treated badly (i.e. those of the catholic church).

The harm done is invisible. It destroys grace in the soul.

:rolleyes: another christian miracle that we're not supposed to question because it's invisible. I love the way you lot use science when it suits you and revert to superstition whenever you need to "clarify" something.

I'm married to the woman I fell in love with and I have three children and I'm 38 years old. The point I'm making is where do you draw the line? Is consenting sex between a father and an adult daughter acceptable or between two adult sisters? Do you think sex with an animal is OK? Is it right for a man to have several wives? Is right and wrong down to a personal opinion?

No, I don't believe sex with an animal is ok. An animal can hardly consent to sex, can it? Incest as you describe it is plainly wrong for well-established biological reasons. Many cultures practice polygamy and as long as everyone involved consents, and as long as the society in which is takes place is equipped to deal with it, then I don't see the inherent harm.

Its very easy to draw the line - the line should be drawn where 1) consent from participating parties is not involved and 2) where something is considered wrong for established medical or sociological reasons - not because of superstitions or squeamishness held by one particular group in society (i.e. christians).

CerebralCortex · 19-02-2008 4:36pm

kelly1 wrote: »

...I'm married to the woman I fell in love with and I have three children and I'm 38 years old. The point I'm making is where do you draw the line? Is consenting sex between a father and an adult daughter acceptable or between two adult sisters? Do you think sex with an animal is OK? Is it right for a man to have several wives? Is right and wrong down to a personal opinion?

Firstly I hope you give your kids the chance that I never got, to be free to chose which path they take wrt religion. For that I would thank you. The line is where two unrelated individuals want to be together to provide happiness for each other. If a daughter was happy to have relations of a sexual nature with her father well thats mental illness. If two people of the same sex with no blood relations want to have a relationship with each other well thats just nature because they simply don't know any different. What would be unnatural and unfair for the two involved is for a homosexual to force himself/herself to be in a heterosexual relationship? I couldn't imagine anything more soul destroying.

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 4:39pm

djpbarry wrote: »

So what would you do with homosexuals if you were in charge?

Nothing, that's their business.

djpbarry wrote: »

The main reason incest is socially unacceptable is to protect the gene pool from excessive damage by inbreeding.

Are you sure that's the reason? Isn't it just a bridge too far? Years ago homosexuality wasn't accepted the way it is today. Our sense of sin is diminishing. Is incest OK if contraception is used?

djpbarry wrote: »

I can't believe you're comparing homosexuality with incest. :rolleyes:

Why not, both are unnatural. Apart from the gene pool issue, do you have any problem with incest?

Tar.Aldarion · 19-02-2008 4:42pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Are you sure that's the reason? Isn't it just a bridge too far? Years ago homosexuality wasn't accepted the way it is today. Our sense of sin is diminishing. Is incest OK if contraception is used?

Incest should only be illegal between people that are growing up together, in the case of twins seperated at birth or something, I find nothing wrong with them having sex with each other if they meet 30 years later.
There are none of the emotionally damaging aspects that could affect kin growing up together.

BrianCalgary · 19-02-2008 4:43pm

cornbb wrote: »

"Sin" is pure fantasy, sin is something that was invented by a group of men in the last few thousand years. .

Where do you get this idea from?

Tar.Aldarion · 19-02-2008 4:46pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Where do you get this idea from?

For people that do not believe in religion, sin does not exist. The concept was created when the religion was.

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 4:47pm

cornbb wrote: »

Could you clarify that by explaining whether you think its wrong that homosexuals should be treated as "filthy" and "disgusting" things, or wrong that they should be treated as human beings?

First of all I didn't say that homosexuals were disgusting, I said homosexual acts were because I believe it destroys a persons dignity. And of course every person regardless of sexual orientation deserves to be treated with Christian charity despite their actions.

cornbb · 19-02-2008 4:49pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Where do you get this idea from?

Well, I believe it in the same way that I believe things like the soul, hell, heaven and so on are all inventions of the church. (I'm an atheist as you may have guessed).

"Sin" is roughly analogous to "crime" as defined by modern legal systems. But, like our definition of what constitutes a crime, the definition of what a sin is is a man-made thing, and subject to change over time.

Edit: Tar.Aldarion also put it nicely there.

cornbb · 19-02-2008 4:53pm

kelly1 wrote: »

First of all I didn't say that homosexuals were disgusting, I said homosexual acts were

Very well, I'll accept that

because I believe it destroys a persons dignity

Thats also fair enough. But its only undignified from your perspective. From my perspective, and without disrespect to anyone here, I believe that a lifetime of bowing and scraping to a god I don't believe exists, as well as devotion to an organisation like the catholic church, destroys a person's dignity.

And of course every person regardless of sexual orientation deserves to be treated with Christian charity despite their actions.

"Christian charity" means nothing to people. What is christian charity? What about some respect instead?

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 5:04pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If a daughter was happy to have relations of a sexual nature with her father well thats mental illness.

Many would disagree with you. Why is it wrong? Because it's generally unacceptable by society?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If two people of the same sex with no blood relations want to have a relationship with each other well thats just nature because they simply don't know any different.

How is sex between two men or two women natural? And what do you mean when you say they don't know any different? Does that mean it's wrong but they don't know it's wrong?

CerebralCortex · 19-02-2008 5:11pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Many would disagree with you. Why is it wrong? Because it's generally unacceptable by society?

Ok see where you're going with that one. It is wrong many more levels than just what society thinks (not a necessarily a religious level).

kelly1 wrote: »

How is sex between two men or two women natural? And what do you mean when you say they don't know any different? Does that mean it's wrong but they don't know it's wrong?

Because some men and women are born attracted to the same sex naturally so therefore they will naturally want to act on those attractions like us heterosexuals want and do.
I'm getting bored of repeating myself, I just wish for once you'd look outside of the pages of the bible and beyond the windows of the church you might surprise yourself.

cornbb · 19-02-2008 5:20pm

Just because homosexuals are a minority doesn't mean homosexuality is unnatural. It has been practiced by people and animals since the beginning of time. Gender roles are not as universally black and white as people would like to believe, e.g. some species of plant reproduce asexually, the male sea horse carries the unborn offspring rather than the female, etc.

Left-handed people, a proportion of the population similar to the proportion of homosexuals in society, were considered undesirable freaks of nature until recently. Why are they no longer considered unnatural? Because we mature is a society and adapt our belief system when we realise that past attitudes were somehow wrong. The same is happening to attitudes to homosexuality in society. To consider left-handed people as freaks to be oppressed now is ludicrous, the same thing will apply to attitudes to homosexuality although certain parts of society (e.g. religious ones) will cling to old beliefs for longer than others.

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 5:21pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ok see where you're going with that one. It is wrong many more levels than just what society thinks (not a necessarily a religious level).

OK, leaving societies' views and religion aside, how is consenting incest wrong? You see I don't see how you find incest wrong and homosexual sex OK. I see a contradiction there.

CerebralCortex · 19-02-2008 5:27pm

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, leaving societies' views and religion aside, how is consenting incest wrong? You see I don't see how you find incest wrong and homosexual sex OK. I see a contradiction there.

Because of the psychological implications of such a relationship as it changes from a parent child one to a sexual one. Homosexuality is just 2 people of the same sex in love with each other no other emotions before that.

cornbb · 19-02-2008 5:29pm

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, leaving societies' views and religion aside, how is consenting incest wrong? You see I don't see how you find incest wrong and homosexual sex OK. I see a contradiction there.

Because it is biologically harmful to the gene pool, as well as psychologically damaging when people who are raised in the same family become romantically or sexually involved. This would occur regardless of the norms/morals imposed by society.

Psychological damage related to homosexuality only seems to occur when homosexual tendencies are suppressed, on the other hand. If society were more open/accepting about the homosexual lifestyle then the fear of "coming out" would disappear, and associated psychological problems associated with suppression would be gone too. You can see this in places like San Francisco - lots of happy gays living in harmony with the rest of society.

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 5:29pm

cornbb wrote: »

Left-handed people, a proportion of the population similar to the proportion of homosexuals in society, were considered undesirable freaks of nature until recently. Why are they no longer considered unnatural? Because we mature is a society and adapt our belief system when we realise that past attitudes were somehow wrong. The same is happening to attitudes to homosexuality in society. To consider left-handed people as freaks to be oppressed now is ludicrous, the same thing will apply to attitudes to homosexuality although certain parts of society (e.g. religious ones) will cling to old beliefs for longer than others.

By the same logic, do you think consenting sex between close relatives will become acceptable to society in years to come?

cornbb · 19-02-2008 5:32pm

kelly1 wrote: »

By the same logic, do you think consenting sex between close relatives will become acceptable to society in years to come?

No, its not the same logic at all. Incest is socially, medically and psychologically damaging no matter how society's norms or views change (see my post above).

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 5:46pm

cornbb wrote: »

Because it is biologically harmful to the gene pool, as well as psychologically damaging when people who are raised in the same family become romantically or sexually involved. This would occur regardless of the norms/morals imposed by society.

OK, let say two sisters have consensual sex and they both feel that it's not doing any psychological harm. Obviously there's no chance of the gene pool being damaged. Would it be OK in this case?

CerebralCortex · 19-02-2008 5:52pm

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, let say two sisters have consensual sex and they both feel that it's not doing any psychological harm. Obviously there's no chance of the gene pool being damaged. Would it be OK in this case?

What IS the point you're trying to make? Comparing incest to homosexuality isn't going to work, I personally doubt because of you beliefs (which I find offensive) that you have researched what it means to be homosexual because if you did you would cease comparing it to incest. There is a link floating around in the A+A forum which details scientific research into homosexuality and how a child is born that way. I suggest you look for it and read it!

cornbb · 19-02-2008 5:58pm

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, let say two sisters have consensual sex and they both feel that it's not doing any psychological harm. Obviously there's no chance of the gene pool being damaged. Would it be OK in this case?

You can't simply decide not to be psychologically hurt when it suits you - if that were the case we could choose not to feel grief when a loved one dies. The type of psychological damage that invariably occurs when two members of the same family become sexually involved is the reason that society has put a taboo on incest. Just like there is a taboo on paedophelia - someone always gets hurt. Society has imposed a taboo on incest with good reason.

This is not the case with homosexuality. Therefore -

- Taboo on incest - due to established scientific evidence (to protect the health of the mind and the gene pool).
- Taboo on homosexuality - due to superstition and squeamishness.

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 5:59pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What IS the point you're trying to make? Comparing incest to homosexuality isn't going to work, I personally doubt because of you beliefs (which I find offensive) that you have researched what it means to be homosexual because if you did you would cease comparing it to incest. There is a link floating around in the A+A forum which details scientific research into homosexuality and how a child is born that way. I suggest you look for it and read it!

The point I'm trying to make is that people have justified homosexual sex so why not justify incest. I'm trying to establish what kind of yardstick people use to determine what's wrong and what's right. Some will say that something's wrong if harm is done but then will go on to justify abortion. It's all very murky.

Anyway this thread is supposed to be about the demise of Catholic Church. I think I've pulled it way off course for long enough.

CerebralCortex · 19-02-2008 6:01pm

kelly1 wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is that people have justified homosexual sex so why not justify incest. I'm trying to establish what kind of yardstick people use to determine what's wrong and what's right. Some will say that something's wrong if harm is done but then will go on to justify abortion. It's all very murky.

Anyway this thread is supposed to be about the demise of Catholic Church. I think I've pulled it way off course for long enough.

We've told you repeatedly (at least I have) theres no need to justify homosexuality people are just born that way. But you seem incapable of listening. You are a flagship for the demise of the Catholic Church.

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 6:10pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

We've told you repeatedly (at least I have) theres no need to justify homosexuality people are just born that way. But you seem incapable of listening. You are a flagship for the demise of the Catholic Church.

And you seem to assume that every homosexual is born homosexual. False assumption. You're conveniently forgetting environment, upbringing and personal choice.

This is my last post on this subject.

CerebralCortex · 19-02-2008 6:11pm

kelly1 wrote: »

....This is my last post on this subject.

Yes my lord.

Tar.Aldarion · 19-02-2008 6:13pm

Personal choice...to be gay?
You think poeple can choose it?

cornbb · 19-02-2008 6:21pm

Back on topic then...

The catholic church will continue to shrink in size and influence in Ireland as the rest of society moves forward to an enlightened way of thinking (e.g. acceptance of homosexuality, contraception) and leaves it standing still. The church will eventually realise that it is putting distance between itself and potential members with outdated attitudes, so those attitudes will be "revised" when a more forward-thinking pope eventually comes along. This will be essential for the churches survival.

As for the separation of church and state in Ireland, I for one am looking forward to the time that happens. I have no problem with anybody practicing their faith, I just don't think that the rest of us should have to send our children to catholic-run schools as a matter of course. Although I think it'll happen eventually, unfortunately I don't think it'll happen too soon.

CerebralCortex · 19-02-2008 6:36pm

cornbb wrote: »

Back on topic then...

The catholic church will continue to shrink in size and influence in Ireland as the rest of society moves forward to an enlightened way of thinking (e.g. acceptance of homosexuality, contraception) and leaves it standing still. The church will eventually realise that it is putting distance between itself and potential members with outdated attitudes, so those attitudes will be "revised" when a more forward-thinking pope eventually comes along. This will be essential for the churches survival.

As for the separation of church and state in Ireland, I for one am looking forward to the time that happens. I have no problem with anybody practicing their faith, I just don't think that the rest of us should have to send our children to catholic-run schools as a matter of course. Although I think it'll happen eventually, unfortunately I don't think it'll happen too soon.

But then what happens to the likes of Kelly1 who believes deeply in the CC as it is now, how would he cope if celibacy were forgotten about for example?

cornbb · 19-02-2008 6:38pm

Not going to put words in kelly1's mouth, but I'm sure the catholic doublethink (i.e. the power to forget a previous belief when it becomes inconvenient) will come out in force and it'll all be fine :rolleyes:

(Edit: Someone is bound to ask me to back this up with an example so here is one off the top of my head: since when did it not become sinful to eat meat on a Friday?)

BrianCalgary · 20-02-2008 4:33pm

cornbb wrote: »

Back on topic then...

The catholic church will continue to shrink in size and influence in Ireland as the rest of society moves forward to an enlightened way of thinking (e.g. acceptance of homosexuality, contraception) and leaves it standing still. The church will eventually realise that it is putting distance between itself and potential members with outdated attitudes, so those attitudes will be "revised" when a more forward-thinking pope eventually comes along. This will be essential for the churches survival. .

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

cornbb wrote: »

As for the separation of church and state in Ireland, I for one am looking forward to the time that happens. I have no problem with anybody practicing their faith, I just don't think that the rest of us should have to send our children to catholic-run schools as a matter of course. Although I think it'll happen eventually, unfortunately I don't think it'll happen too soon.

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

djpbarry · 20-02-2008 4:42pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

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

BrianCalgary · 20-02-2008 4:52pm

djpbarry wrote: »

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

Only in structure and delivery. But to change the word of God? No, it fails.

And how can anyone make a statement that accepting homosexuality is a step forward?

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

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.

The end of the Catholic Church in Ireland ??

Comments