Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Where are all the Catholics???

2

Comments

  • #52
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    womoma wrote: »
    Many people would argue that misspelling ridiculous is even more ridiculous. You tee them up and I'll shoot them off. :D
    Apologies we are all fallable. You still got the basic point behind it.
    womoma wrote: »
    No. Instilling Christian values such as "treat people how you would like to be treated" is not indoctrination. It is good parenting. Atheists instill values in their children too, many of which would be similar to Christian values.

    It is teaching children the belief in a God, sins, Heaven, Hell etc that many atheists are opposed to.

    Bringing up a child an atheist is not indoctrination. It is the complete opposite. One is allowing the child to be a child, then make up their own mind when they are mature enough to do so.

    I think Christians should decide to be opposed to bringing up children atheist and call it "child abuse". God, sins, Heaven and Hell are all part of bring up your child with Christian values, there is no shame in that.

    Actually, there are cases by which some people are so anti-religion that they bring their children up that way as well. I'm not saying that the majority of atheist parents do this by any means. Even bringing up a child without religion will have some impact on their character and make them less likely to turn to religion. The parent is still bringing the child up as they want. Whether with Christian values or with secular values, I don't believe either is indoctrination.

    womoma wrote: »
    They do have the right to do it.

    You clearly don't agree with this though. Just out of interest do you think that what you refer to as "indoctrination", should be banned or outlawed?
    womoma wrote: »
    If I was deluded that my child had to wear a blue hat until the age of 12 to save her from Hell, I would make her wear that hat.

    Nobody said you think you are doing the children harm by indoctrinating them. Your intentions are good, but that doesn't make it right.

    And bringing up a child into a lack of religion or secularism doesn't mean it's entirely right either? Until it is certain that a God or a higher power doesn't exist in the first place, how is it wrong? Or is it just wrong in your opinion purely because you don't believe in the first place? I'm just curious to your understanding and the hostility that you have to the Christian system in Ireland.
    womoma wrote: »
    I was talking about Ireland. Either way, don't believe everything you read. I suppose that might be difficult for you.

    You don't believe it was in the Economist or you don't think it'll happen? I'll refer you to the article: http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10015255
    There you go. It was a very good special report on religion if anyone else concerned is interested. It is of course speculation, but hopefully this is the way the world will go.
    womoma wrote: »
    Hopefully it the decline continues. A couple more scandals would do the trick. I'm sure the RCC has plenty more ghosts in its closet.

    Interesting the decline of the RCC? What about the rest of us. Personally I'm an adherent of the Church of Ireland at the minute. Do you think other churches could exert considerable influence in the future if not the Roman Catholic Church?
    womoma wrote: »
    I never said it was. But I believe the world would be a better, safer, more tolerant, fairer place without religion.

    I'm sure the world would be just as intolerant with the lack of religion. We've seen that through the years with people like Stalin and Hoxha.

    womoma wrote: »
    The last time I was in church was a couple of years ago with an X girlfriend who insisted on going during Easter. We were the only young people in the church. It was hilarious.

    Perhaps that is the case in your church. In my church and in other churches I have been in that is not the case. What do you think about that? I find it a bit odd that you see the decline of the church as something to celebrate, do you not think that people find peace in believing in Christ Jesus? And if so isn't it a bit sadistic to celebrate it's so called downfall?


  • #53
    ryoishin
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭ryoishin


    most Catholics dont have a clue about the moral teachings of the church. even teachings is not a good word its more moral thought because there are no black and white answers in the church.

    When i was studying theology we startered off with 16 in the class and 2 years later it was down to 3 (of the origional). simply because what they thought was Catholic teaching was nt what the church was teaching. but its an irish thing i think. some authority figure tells their opinion (as opposed to saying this is what the faithful believe) and it becomes accepted as "oh that must be part of what God wants". God gave us a brain to disagree and discover things for ourselves. thats reflected in catholic thought where moral issues are to be decided upon your own reasoning. but thats not to say you should ignore other church or non church ideas and opinions.


  • #54
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,849 ✭✭✭condra


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Apologies we are all fallable. You still got the basic point behind it.

    No need to apologise, it was a cheap shot from me to point out your spelling error in the first place.
    I think Christians should decide to be opposed to bringing up children atheist and call it "child abuse". God, sins, Heaven and Hell are all part of bring up your child with Christian values, there is no shame in that.

    Faith is a virtue to you, it is a delusion to me. We will probably never agree on some points.
    Actually, there are cases by which some people are so anti-religion that they bring their children up that way as well. I'm not saying that the majority of atheist parents do this by any means.
    Personally, I would be pretty disguisted by any parent bringing up a child to be intolerant towards theists, be they Christians, Muslims or whatever.
    Even bringing up a child without religion will have some impact on their character and make them less likely to turn to religion. The parent is still bringing the child up as they want.
    True.
    Whether with Christian values or with secular values, I don't believe either is indoctrination.
    Like I said already, the VALUES are not the issue, its the beliefs which are the problem.

    The values that most good parents instill in their children tend to be geared towards benevolence, tolerance and understanding.
    You clearly don't agree with this though.

    We are talking about definitions or words now, but from my understanding of the word "indoctrination", it applies more to theists inculcating ideas and beliefs about a doctrine, a doctrine which is not expected to be questioned.

    Teaching a child to think for themselves, to question everything, to challenge their own beliefs as well as those of others cannot be described as indoctrination. It is allowing children to keep the open mind they were born with.

    At the end of the day I think despite your best intentions, you are making up excuses for the indoctrination of children.
    Just out of interest do you think that what you refer to as "indoctrination", should be banned or outlawed?
    That is a tough question.

    I would like to see less childhood indoctrination as a result of better education and a decline in religion, racism, biggotry and other things which are harmfull to mankind.

    To deny parents the right to bring up children in whatever way they see fit would be wrong, but it is sad to see children who have been moulded by their parents to share their mentality.

    I recently saw a documentary about 2 lovely little girls in USA who were brought up to be racist. It broke my heart. You may see this as being very different to bring up a child as a Christian, but I draw the line at a different place in the sand.

    Childhood intoctrination is child abuse and mental slavery, wether it is about people of different ethnic background being inferior, a supreme being who loves you but will send you to Hell, or a man in a red suit who brings you presents if you are good.
    And bringing up a child into a lack of religion or secularism doesn't mean it's entirely right either? Until it is certain that a God or a higher power doesn't exist in the first place, how is it wrong?
    Some things we know as fact, and some things are debatable. We know that grass is green and that water is vital to life on earth. It is not abusive to teach children what we know is (and agree is) fact.
    Or is it just wrong in your opinion purely because you don't believe in the first place?
    It is wrong for reasons which I have explained above, and because the naivity of children is being exploited by people with an agenda.

    Children are very impressionable.
    It is wrong to mould them to believe something which is debatable.
    You don't believe it was in the Economist or you don't think it'll happen? I'll refer you to the article: http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10015255
    There you go. It was a very good special report on religion if anyone else concerned is interested.

    I believe it was the Economist. My point was that your reply (to my point about religion in Ireland) was about religion on a world scale.
    Do you think other churches could exert considerable influence in the future if not the Roman Catholic Church?
    I don't know what will happen in the future, but as you can guess, I would like to see religion have less and less influence on the world.
    I'm sure the world would be just as intolerant with the lack of religion. We've seen that through the years with people like Stalin and Hoxha.
    There have been evil people who happened to be atheists, but their crimes were not all necessarily "in the name of" atheism, unlike the many genocides in the name of religion.

    I'm not a historian, but I stand by my opinion that the world would be a better place without religion, and with better education.
    Perhaps that is the case in your church. In my church and in other churches I have been in that is not the case. What do you think about that?
    I think you have been to a church with young people. It means nothing.
    I find it a bit odd that you see the decline of the church as something to celebrate, do you not think that people find peace in believing in Christ Jesus?
    I know for a fact that many people "find peace" in believing in Jesus. Many people find peace in believing that an asprin is going to cure their cancer, or that their dead parents watch over them. The list goes on and on, but it doesnt make it true.
    Most atheists are good people who live happy, fulfilled lives.
    And if so isn't it a bit sadistic to celebrate it's so called downfall?
    Sadistic? No. It is a source of great joy to see a decline in pointless, harmfull superstition.

    Happy Christmas.


  • #55
    Splendour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    womoma wrote: »
    I never said it was. But I believe the world would be a better, safer, more tolerant, fairer place without religion.

    Sounds like your describing the Amish community-but no wait, couldn't be could it? Christians aren't they? :D


  • #56
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    womoma wrote: »
    Personally, I would be pretty disguisted by any parent bringing up a child to be intolerant towards theists, be they Christians, Muslims or whatever.

    That's interesting to note. I just want to ask you this. If someone teaches a child to grow in a faith as long as it doesn't encourage intolerance towards other faiths what does it cause?
    womoma wrote: »
    Like I said already, the VALUES are not the issue, its the beliefs which are the problem.

    The values that most good parents instill in their children tend to be geared towards benevolence, tolerance and understanding.

    For me the values of Christianity go hand in hand with the beliefs and the tenets of the faith. Perhaps it's this close association between them that are the issue between atheist and theists. I don't see if a religion promotes positive values and brings out the best in people as I've seen Christianity do that it isn't a success story? Good things generally come from worship in God, for me that isn't a coincidence. I think that the image of a tolerant, understanding and benevolent God & Messiah, helps us to be able to do this unto others.
    womoma wrote:
    We are talking about definitions or words now, but from my understanding of the word "indoctrination", it applies more to theists inculcating ideas and beliefs about a doctrine, a doctrine which is not expected to be questioned.

    Heres the misunderstanding. People can criticise the Christian faith as much as they want as long as it is legitimate criticism that doesn't descend into ridiculing or making fun of our beliefs. I infact think that looking at religious texts such as the Bible, the Qu'ran and the Gnostics, and various books on theology including Eusebius - the Church History (a very interesting book to note the Early Christian perspectives) among other political books that I've read (mostly on the Israel-Palestine conflict) has helped instill a skill of textual criticism inside me. I believe in what I believe for spiritual reasons firstly, and practical and logical reasons after looking at the sheer amount of texts there are to look to.
    womoma wrote:
    Teaching a child to think for themselves, to question everything, to challenge their own beliefs as well as those of others cannot be described as indoctrination. It is allowing children to keep the open mind they were born with.

    Absolutely. I think in a Christian scenario, that doubt in the end actually has reinforced my faith and in finding the key solutions to my doubt has helped build a foundation or to dig down deeper in the rock to build a solid foundation.
    womoma wrote:
    At the end of the day I think despite your best intentions, you are making up excuses for the indoctrination of children.

    This is the point where I disagree with you again. Teaching the child about a particular faith allows them to use their textual criticism of this. I don't believe that children should be given a "because that's that" answer. They should be explained how something could happen in a reasonable fashion. Such as "why do we exist?", "what's the role of evil in our lives", and several other questions. However I don't see what is wrong in the Christian example to start people off in life. Then if we descend to the issue of what is true, I do believe that it is true! I believe that I would be lying to children if I didn't tell them about the possible existence of God.
    womoma wrote:
    That is a tough question.

    I would like to see less childhood indoctrination as a result of better education and a decline in religion, racism, biggotry and other things which are harmfull to mankind.

    To deny parents the right to bring up children in whatever way they see fit would be wrong, but it is sad to see children who have been moulded by their parents to share their mentality.

    You seem to take religion as one and the same as racism, bigotry, etc. It definitely isn't there are tangible benefits to religion. Religion has allowed for people to have an increased sense of belonging being able to refer their situation now to the situation of the patriarchs and figures in their religions. Refer their bad experiences to those of prophets such as David, who committed adultery, and numerous other counts of this. It makes people find something they can rely on. Figures have suggested recently that the levels of suicide among theistic communities tends to be lower than that of atheistic or agnostic communities. I see this as a benefit. Judaism actually has a significantly lower percent than all other groupings in society. This link based on several studies, brought up an interest. http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

    The Hilton study showed not only that membership in a highly religious culture is linked to lower levels of suicide, but also that higher levels of participation within a specific religious group are linked to lower levels of suicide.

    womoma wrote:
    I recently saw a documentary about 2 lovely little girls in USA who were brought up to be racist. It broke my heart. You may see this as being very different to bring up a child as a Christian, but I draw the line at a different place in the sand.

    This is a bit mad alright considering that Christian doctrine, and Pauline theology directly condemns this. I don't see how Christianity and racism are one and the same. You're right I don't see the connection.
    womoma wrote:
    Childhood intoctrination is child abuse and mental slavery, wether it is about people of different ethnic background being inferior, a supreme being who loves you but will send you to Hell, or a man in a red suit who brings you presents if you are good.

    I definitely don't think if bringing your child to a religion has such considerable benefits in terms of mental health, that it is child abuse. You have to accept that Supreme Being, He has been waiting your whole life to turn to Him. You still have that option. I think more focus should be on Christ at Christmas, as opposed to Santa Claus. If I ever have children (and if I do it'll be a very long time from now), I wouldn't teach them of Santa Claus.
    womoma wrote:
    Some things we know as fact, and some things are debatable. We know that grass is green and that water is vital to life on earth. It is not abusive to teach children what we know is (and agree is) fact.

    I can see where you are coming from in this quote. I'm very confident in the fact that God is true and does exist, I feel His Holy Spirit personally. I'm not going to deny his existence to my own flesh and blood (should I have any). I'm proud of my faith in Christ, and I will share it with those that I respect and love. I don't believe it's abusive whatsoever to tell someone that I regard in that way of my experiences with God, do you?

    womoma wrote:
    I believe it was the Economist. My point was that your reply (to my point about religion in Ireland) was about religion on a world scale.


    In Europe is in light of the way things are going in Ireland. I've seen a rapid growth in religious belief outside of the Catholic church. Particularly among my Pentecostal friends, I think it applies to Ireland as much as any other part of the world.

    womoma wrote:
    I don't know what will happen in the future, but as you can guess, I would like to see religion have less and less influence on the world.

    Looks like we have very different agendas then. I hope that religion will have a greater role in the future, and that maybe there might be a Christian theocracy somewhere in the world in the near future. I hope for the decline of secularism. As I say very different.
    womoma wrote:
    There have been evil people who happened to be atheists, but their crimes were not all necessarily "in the name of" atheism, unlike the many genocides in the name of religion.

    Interesting, list a few of these genocides. Let me talk them out with you. I think the same applies for religion particularly Christianity as you say applies for atheism. But I'm all ears.
    womoma wrote:
    I'm not a historian, but I stand by my opinion that the world would be a better place without religion, and with better education.

    I agree entirely on education. I think the world would be a better place with more religion.
    womoma wrote:
    I know for a fact that many people "find peace" in believing in Jesus. Many people find peace in believing that an asprin is going to cure their cancer, or that their dead parents watch over them. The list goes on and on, but it doesnt make it true.
    Most atheists are good people who live happy, fulfilled lives.

    I have atheist friends at school, I'm perfectly fine with their way of thinking as long as they do not mock my beliefs and respect me for who I am. I see Christianity as a mark on my identity, and I see my relationship with God as part of who I am as a person.

    womoma wrote:
    Sadistic? No. It is a source of great joy to see a decline in pointless, harmfull superstition.

    Happy Christmas.

    I see it as a touch sadistic. I find your terming "Happy Christmas" after that to be a bit weird also. But I guess in this world of rising secularism (hopefully not for long) I'll have to get used to that.


  • #57
    The guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭The guy


    I'm a catholic, I don't really post in any forums.


  • #58
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    So realistically speaking you could probably reverse that figure of 86% around to 14% it would be more of a realistic figure for practicing Catholics in Ireland. Although most of those 86% will eventually be burried at a Catholic funeral service.
    Of the 88.4% who claimed to be RC, the Catholic Church in Ireland estimates 63% of those are practicing RC. So that would make the proportion of the Irish population approx 55.7%
    That is the most generous estimates, the other side of the coin (from newspaper surveys and telephone poles) when we ask the flock not the shepards is a 44% practising rate amongst all denominations; so less than 40% (88.6*.44) of the country are practising Catholics.

    Still though, its a damn sight higher than 14%!

    (Other Christian denominations have a nominal ie including non practising following of 3.67%.)


  • #59
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    How much of that percentage is Irish people?
    I imagine such a decline in the pc'ages continues with the dying of the last generation etc.
    I know of one person that goes to mass that is under 50, would many people my ages(20's) have the same experience?


  • #60
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    They are all Irish figures, taken from the 2002 census and the International Religious Freedom Report 2004.

    I know a few people who go to mass in their 20's, but they are definitly in the extreme minority of people Ive met, and Im sure ive seen this broken down by age but I cant find a link handy


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Greetings brothers and sisters in Christ!
    Hello :)
    I often wonder that in a country which is supposedly mainly Catholic (86%?) that there are so few active Catholics on this forum!
    Less than a quarter of boardsie's are over 30 Id say is a big reason. There's a huge decline in practising RC, its only about 40% of the pop., most of them over 30!

    I really think it's a poor reflection on Catholics at the end of the day. While I think that infant baptism is perfectly valid, being a sacrament
    didnt see infant baptism anywhere in the Bible, where should I be looking?
    I feel that many Catholics don't appreciate their faith and fall away from the Church due to poor education/misunderstandings in/about the faith, bad and often unfair media, apathy and the usual worldly snares/lures.

    I like many others made the informed decision to leave the Church.
    My original reason was the gap between the bible and church teaching (post Vatican II). Then after going back to the bible, Catholic cannon and first principles I was immediately struck by the incongruence's of the gospels.
    Lets take Christ's birth for example considering its Christmas, why are the accounts A)Only present in 2 gospels and B)So incredibly different. The descendant of the Heir of Israel being adored by magi or the descendant of Adam and the non royal line from David being adored by Shepards. This is a small example. The story of Christ was rewritten time and again depending on the audience. The goal was to convert masses, not to spread the word. Yes there is a difference.

    Most of the tradition of the church was simply invented. Limbo, confirmation, celibacy, indulgences...

    So I did more research and discovered how unreliable it all was given the power struggles, the propaganda and the rows. The apocryphal texts that were destroyed and hidden. I mean for FFS, the stuff they've "found" in the Vatican library. Why are there only 4 canonical gospels? Why is most of the new testament written by Luke and Paul, neither of whom met Jesus - while he was alive at least, I dont believe the road to Damascus story. Its just so contrary to what Jesus said in the Gospel according to Mathew and John, the only (canonical) Gospels written by apostles.

    This lead me to more intensively research the history of the church. The sheer abuse of power and hypocrisy scared the bejasus out of me. Not that the Protestants werent just as bad; for a scare before bed time contrast the number of witches the RC burned Vs the number the Protestant's did.
    Shortly after I decided to leave the child abuse scandals really kicked off (though even from my earliest memories Child Abuse had always been associated with priests in my mind - was it just simmering under the surface for decades?) and I knew that I could just never go back.


    So thanks for labelling those who decided to leave the Church as misinformed about the faith or easily beguiled by biased media; but thats far from the truth.

    I left the Catholic Church not because I dont believe in God or Christ but because I dont believe them to be true to God or Christ.

    You may be wondering then do I consider myself Protestant?
    My take on The 5 Fundamental Principles
    1. The Pope has no authority

    Nor should he, but what you have is a load of "little Popes", people like Luther, Calvin etc who made there own rules/interpretations and these have been followed with the same folly people follow the Pope.
    (Anyway, the power of Pope is given to Peter in the bible)

    2. Bible Alone -

    But its the same Bible as the RC, so I still have my fundamental problem of an inaccurate inauthentic Bible.

    3. Free interpretation of the Bible

    I'd agree, though the Bible clearly states otherwise. And you get fundamentalists who dont interpret it at all and as a result we have the perpetuation of ignorance with harmful consequences. Some examples Id give might be deemed offensive.

    4. Salvation by Faith alone

    I fundamentally dont agree. Yes you need faith, but I dont there is nothing more powerful than actions, you must be a good person aswel as having faith.

    5. The Priesthood of all believers

    It seems to completely contradict the other principles of the Reformation.



    When I logged on kelly1 (and mod and regulars) I had no intention of going on a tirade against Christian denominations, what drew me to this forum was actually how I get annoyed at people claiming to be something they're not on census forums. :)

    Im not a Catholic, and Im not a Protestant. I havent found any non-Christian faith that matches my beliefs (which I feel are essentially Christian) either. Guess Im still looking for answers.


  • #62
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    The guy wrote: »
    I'm a catholic, I don't really post in any forums.
    OK, thanks, I think. Do you have any further comment to make?


  • #63
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,849 ✭✭✭condra


    Jakkass, thanks again for your replys.

    There are some things which we will never agree on and I would like to stop going around in circles soon if possible, especially on irrelivent tangents.

    I would still like to reply to some of your comments however, and I will do my best fo be brief!
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If someone teaches a child to grow in a faith as long as it doesn't encourage intolerance towards other faiths what does it cause?

    Harm. In my opinion.
    For me the values of Christianity go hand in hand with the beliefs and the tenets of the faith. Perhaps it's this close association between them that are the issue between atheist and theists.

    I don't see if a religion promotes positive values and brings out the best in people as I've seen Christianity do that it isn't a success story?

    Many atheists would argue that being "good" for fear of going to hell is disingenuous.

    Atheists are often accused of being cynical, but isn't it cynical to think that people need to be threatened with eternal damnation for them to be "good".

    I have enough faith in human nature to feel that children can be brought up to be "good people" without religion. I'm no expert on children, but in my opinion, children need love and education first and foremost, in order for them to grow up as balanced individuals.
    Good things generally come from worship in God

    I would have respected this comment had you pointed out that it was your opinion, but as you presented it as fact, it doesnt deserve any further comment. Either way, it could be a whole thread in itself. Feel free to post a thread in the A&A forum on the subject.:D
    I don't believe that children should be given a "because that's that" answer. They should be explained how something could happen in a reasonable fashion. Such as "why do we exist?", "what's the role of evil in our lives", and several other questions.

    I agree that children should be explained how something could happen in a reasonable fashion. Scientific fact is reasonable.
    I believe that I would be lying to children if I didn't tell them about the possible existence of God.

    I would consider it a positive thing to teach children about the possible existence of God, but not that God is fact.
    You seem to take religion as one and the same as racism, bigotry, etc.
    Not one and the same, but yes, I put them in similar camps.
    Figures have suggested recently that the levels of suicide among theistic communities tends to be lower than that of atheistic or agnostic communities.
    What's with all the statistics?!!
    Firstly suicide is a sin to you, but a tragedy to me. I also support euthanasia in appropriate cases.

    If there are higher percentages of suicide among atheists, it is nothing but an unfortunate factor in not being deluded.

    Like so many atheists will tell you time and time again, any benefits of religion DONT MAKE IT RIGHT.

    If truth is freedom and ignorance is bliss, I would choose truth any day.
    If I ever have children (and if I do it'll be a very long time from now), I wouldn't teach them of Santa Claus.
    Probably for similar reasons that atheists dont teach their children to believe in God.
    womoma wrote:
    **Some things we know as fact, and some things are debatable. We know that grass is green and that water is vital to life on earth. It is not abusive to teach children what we know is (and agree is) fact.
    **I can see where you are coming from in this quote.
    You can see where I'm coming from? lol. progress :p
    I'm very confident in the fact that God is true and does exist, I feel His Holy Spirit personally. I'm not going to deny his existence to my own flesh and blood (should I have any).
    And I can't stop you from doing so, but I believe it to be wrong, and that opinion is not going to change.

    In Europe is in light of the way things are going in Ireland. I've seen a rapid growth in religious belief outside of the Catholic church. Particularly among my Pentecostal friends, I think it applies to Ireland as much as any other part of the world.
    I shouldn't have passed any comment on religion growing or declining in the first place. It has nothing to do with wether or not religion is right or wrong.
    Looks like we have very different agendas then.
    Hahahah, yeah I think that is one thing we can agree on.
    I hope for the decline of secularism.
    Secularism to me is about human rights and tolerance. It is funny that both of us appearantly want what we think is best for mankind, but through different methods.

    I get a sense from you that you are a good natured person. To me, this is the result of human nature, and a balanced, loving upbringing.
    Interesting, list a few of these genocides. Let me talk them out with you. I think the same applies for religion particularly Christianity as you say applies for atheism. But I'm all ears.
    That is a whole other thread, and like I said, I'm no historian, but my point was really to dismiss your comment about Stalin and Hoxha as it really was a pretty cheap dig.
    I have atheist friends at school, I'm perfectly fine with their way of thinking as long as they do not mock my beliefs and respect me for who I am. I see Christianity as a mark on my identity, and I see my relationship with God as part of who I am as a person.
    Good for you.


    I see it as a touch sadistic. ((celebrating a decline in religion))
    Sadism is the derivation of pleasure as a result of the suffering of others. I don't take pleasure in the suffering of any living thing, including my enemies, and animals.
    My reason for celebration would be the prospect of a more enlightened, liberated, educated, tolerant, unified world, where scientific progress is not stifled by deluded lunatics, where women are considered genuinely equal, and where critical thought, logic, and reason, replace mass delusion.
    I find your terming "Happy Christmas" after that to be a bit weird also.
    I do wish you a happy Christmas, but it was also meant with slight tongue in cheek.

    Though Noel (Kelly_1) gets on my nerves, I think we have hijacked his thread enough already and should leave them to it. If you would like to continue our discussion elsewhere, you can find me in the A&A.

    Greets,

    Dec


  • #64
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Hello again, your post was very long so I'm going to pick and choose my responses.
    Kaptain Redeye wrote: »
    Less than a quarter of boardsie's are over 30 Id say is a big reason. There's a huge decline in practising RC, its only about 40% of the pop., most of them over 30!
    Good point, already made by PDN.
    Kaptain Redeye wrote: »
    didnt see infant baptism anywhere in the Bible, where should I be looking?
    It doesn't have to be in the bible because the bible isn't the ultimate earthly authority on truth. The Church is. As the bible says, the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth". Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equally important.
    Kaptain Redeye wrote: »
    I like many others made the informed decision to leave the Church.
    My original reason was the gap between the bible and church teaching (post Vatican II).
    Would you mind elaborating on this "gap" please?
    Kaptain Redeye wrote: »
    Most of the tradition of the church was simply invented. Limbo, confirmation, celibacy, indulgences...
    Only Limbo was invented. Confirmation is scriptural, Paul advocates celibacy and is also a tradition of the Church and indulgences are based on the power to "bind and loose".
    Kaptain Redeye wrote: »
    Shortly after I decided to leave the child abuse scandals really kicked off (though even from my earliest memories Child Abuse had always been associated with priests in my mind - was it just simmering under the surface for decades?) and I knew that I could just never go back.
    The abuse scandals have done untold damage to both the victims and the Church.
    Kaptain Redeye wrote: »
    I left the Catholic Church not because I dont believe in God or Christ but because I dont believe them to be true to God or Christ.
    Yes I know there are many shameful episodes in the history of the Church. Could I ask you what you think happened to the Church founded by Christ, united in one faith? Didn't our Lord promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church?

    Kaptain Redeye wrote: »
    Free interpretation of the Bible

    I'd agree, though the Bible clearly states otherwise.
    Yes, one of my biggest bones of contention. Did you see my "Discovering the Truth" thread?

    God bless you in your search for the truth.
    Noel.


  • #65
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Paul advocates celibacy
    i'd take more notice if jesus said it.
    one of the non religious reasons of celibacy is, cant have widows taking that land can we.


  • #66
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    kelly1 wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be in the bible because the bible isn't the ultimate earthly authority on truth. The Church is. As the bible says, the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth". Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equally important.
    Noel, you are totally discrediting the teachings of St Paul to Timothy,
    "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" 2 Timothy 3:17

    Confirmation is a counterfeit because Only God has the power to give you the Holy Spirit and not from an an ordinary man. In school we were led to believe that only a Bishop had the power to confirm, not so according to Luke 11:13 .

    "Confirmation perfects Baptismal grace; it is the sacrament which gives the Holy Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation, incorporate us MORE FIRMLY into Christ, strengthen our bond with the Church." (#1316, p. 367)

    Only God can Give the Holy Spirit. "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.? Luke 11:13

    The only outstanding memories I had on my confirmation day was nine quid, a trip to the zoo and a pet rabbit. Its memories of "Bouncy Castles" for todays kids.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    The abuse scandals have done untold damage to both the victims and the Church. .
    The abuse scandals have braught the Catholic Church right into the spotlight and exposed it!. The Catholic Church had its day in Ireland and it is now crumbling like an upside down pyramid. It is losing the power that it had over the state and people for centuries, much of its land is been sold off to greedy developers to pay off incurring debts, they have even stooped so low as to charge for evening parking outside a main Dublin hospital. People are leaving it in their droves with just a majority of elderly folk remaining. In recent years only just a hand full are willing to take up vocations. Years ago it was a great privilage to have a family member become a priest, now its just an embarrisment.

    With the likes of "Father Ted" being shown on Telifis Eireann is an other example of the RC loosing its grip in this country, not so long ago such a series would have been banned, when it first came out RTE refused to show or have any part in it. My elderly parents at one time would have been disgusted at this series, now that they have found the truth they find it rather hilarious.

    Many ex Catholics like myself and I am sure many more on this forum have left it and found the truth of salvation in the Scriptures, Nothing could be truer than the words of John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they which testify of me."


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Noel, you are totally discrediting the teachings of St Paul to Timothy,
    "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" 2 Timothy 3:17
    No, I'm not discrediting St Paul. I believe the passage above to be true of course but why are you ignoring this:-

    1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Confirmation is a counterfeit because Only God has the power to give you the Holy Spirit and not from an an ordinary man.
    Is that so?

    Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

    Sounds to me like you've been fed a bunch of lies about the Catholic Church.

    What you don't realize is that the CC has the authority "dispense" grace via the sacraments but I'm sure you don't believe that.

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • #68
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    kelly1 wrote: »
    No, I'm not discrediting St Paul. I believe the passage above to be true of course but why are you ignoring this:-

    1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth..
    Our definition of the word "Church" would differ totally .
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Sounds to me like you've been fed a bunch of lies about the Catholic Church.
    What lies? What rock have you been hiding under for the last decade? do you read the newspapers? watch the news or even the the Angelus on TV?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    What you don't realize is that the CC has the authority "dispense" grace via the sacraments but I'm sure you don't believe that. .
    You said it. The word "Sacrament" is NOT even found in the bible. The definition of "Sacrament" is: "A formal religious act conferring a specific grace on those who receive it." In simpler words, you get something by doing it. The teaching is that there is a "power" to the Sacraments. This is NOT taught in the Bible


  • #69
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Our definition of the word "Church" would differ totally .
    If the Church consisted of all Christian believers of every denomination then you have different sets of irreconcilable doctrines which would mean that by your definition of church, it cannot be the pillar and foundation of the truth. Do you see what I mean?
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    What lies? What rock have you been hiding under for the last decade? do you read the newspapers? watch the news or even the the Angelus on TV?
    You've lost me there. I was referring to biblical support for confirmation. Did you actually read Acts 8:15?

    Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.


    There's no point is us having this debate if you're not going to read what I've written.
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    You said it. The word "Sacrament" is NOT even found in the bible.
    Sorry, wrong again. The sacrament of marriage:-

    Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. 33

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • #70
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    kelly1 wrote: »
    If the Church consisted of all Christian believers of every denomination then you have different sets of irreconcilable doctrines which would mean that by your definition of church, it cannot be the pillar and foundation of the truth. Do you see what I mean? .
    I mentioned this before, I would rather be divided in the truth than united in Error.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    You've lost me there. I was referring to biblical support for confirmation. Did you actually read Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
    Sorry I think we have crossed wires, I was on about the total decline of the role of the Roman Catholic Church has over Ireland which you must admitt. On the subject of Acts 8:15 I just cannot comprehend the Roman Catholic concept of Confirmation, It only binds Binds People to the Catholic Religion
    "For by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly BOUND TO THE CHURCH."[Roman Catholic Church] (#1285, p. 358). No need to be "bound" to the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus doesn't "bind" anyone to man-made traditions. He sets people FREE! "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be FREE INDEED." John 8:36
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Sorry, wrong again. The sacrament of marriage:-
    Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. 33
    The word "Sacrament" dose not appear in this passage in the KIng James nor the NIV version, Maybe some of our Greek scholars can give us a hand here.
    "This is a "great mystery" but I speak concerning Christ and the church" Eph 5:31 KJV.
    "This is a "profound mystery" but I am talking about Christ and the church" Eph 5:31 NIV


  • #71
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    On the subject of Acts 8:15 I just cannot comprehend the Roman Catholic concept of Confirmation, It only binds Binds People to the Catholic Religion.

    "For by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly BOUND TO THE CHURCH and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. (#1285, p. 358).
    Don't you realize that the Church is the Body of Christ. See Coll 1:24.
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    No need to be "bound" to the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus doesn't "bind" anyone to man-made traditions. He sets people FREE! "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be FREE INDEED." John 8:36
    Nasty. The purpose of the Church is to continue Christ's saving work on earth by teaching the truth and administering the sacraments.

    Your hate for the Church is very telling.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Don't you realize that the Church is the Body of Christ. See Coll 1:24.Nasty. The purpose of the Church is to continue Christ's saving work on earth by teaching the truth and administering the sacraments.
    My definition of the "Church" is the body of Christian believers who have accepted Christ irrespective of denomination. I do not recognise the "true Church" as a man made political and religious instutute.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Your hate for the Church is very telling.
    I reject any man made organised religion irrespective of Denomination. "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Jesus, Mark 7:9


  • #73
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Don't you realize that the Church is the Body of Christ. See Coll 1:24.

    So when it murdered people. When it harboured child rapists etc. Was it the body of Christ? Remember, this wasn't certain individuals, but the whole institution. So you are in turn associating these things with the body of Christ, and before you say you are not, you very much are. The Catholic Church murdered many. The Catholic Church harboured child rapists. You say:
    'The Catholic Church = The body of christ', so lets use that term with the above:
    The body of Christ murdered many. The body of Christ harboured child rapists.


  • #74
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    JimiTime wrote: »
    The body of Christ murdered many. The body of Christ harboured child rapists.
    I was afraid to come out with that one :)


  • #75
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    I was afraid to come out with that one :)

    It sounds harsh and insulting I know, but it is one of the most obvious things to exemplify that such an institution cannot be referred to as 'the body of Christ'.


  • #76
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    ....Why is this?.....

    So Catholics out there, why are you in hiding!?.....

    Because I don't believe in God or Jesus or Zeus or Thor etc.


  • #77
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    JimiTime wrote: »
    It sounds harsh and insulting I know, but it is one of the most obvious things to exemplify that such an institution cannot be referred to as 'the body of Christ'.
    It certainly hits the nail on the head.


  • #78
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Christ is the Head of the Body and Christ is without sin. Did Christ ever promise that the Body would never sin?? Didn't Peter deny Jesus three times. We are all subject to the "law of sin" as described by Paul:-

    Romans 7:16 If then I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. 19 For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

    21 I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. 24 Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.

    I don't condone the sins of the Church but let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    Christ came to heal sinners, not the righteous.

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • #79
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    I was afraid to come out with that one :)
    BTW, I agree with this. And you too are sinning against the Body of Christ. This damage is repaired as described by Paul:

    Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.


  • #80
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    ^^So the 'body of christ' is sinful?


  • #81
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    JimiTime wrote: »
    ^^So the 'body of christ' is sinful?
    Yes. The Body of Christ is the Church but it is holy by virtue of the Head which is Christ.

    BTW, you give the impression that the Church is rotten to the core and I find this insulting. Yes many shameful things have happened within the Church but overall it is good. Every time a Christian sins, this damages the Body of Christ and another member of the body can offer their sufferings to Jesus in order to repair this damage as described in Coll 1:24.

    It's called redemptive suffering.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    kelly1 wrote: »
    BTW, you give the impression that the Church is rotten to the core and I find this insulting.
    Call a spade a spade, "Ye shall know them by their fruits", corruption, child abuse, cover ups, materialism, worldly, etc etc.

    A true Christian has a direct personal relation with Christ thus cutting out all such "middle men". "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1 Timothy 2vs5.


  • #83
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Call a spade a spade, "Ye shall know them by their fruits", corruption, child abuse, cover ups, materialism, worldly, etc etc.
    I see you're conveniently ignoring all the good work done by the Church over the centuries. Are you without sin?
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    A true Christian has a direct personal relation with Christ thus cutting out all such "middle men". "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1 Timothy 2vs5.
    Why did Christ establish a Church? For the fun of it? Just a convenient collective pronoun? Who says you can't have a mediator between man and (the human )Jesus?


  • #84
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    kelly1 wrote: »

    It's called redemptive suffering.

    This sounds like a funny notion, can you please describe the mechanism by which this works?


  • #85
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    kelly1 wrote: »

    Why did Christ establish a Church?

    Jesus didn't establish a Church. He established "the Way". There was no word or concept for 'Church' in the Aramaic of 2000 years ago. Paul established your Church not Jesus.


  • #86
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    This sounds like a funny notion, can you please describe the mechanism by which this works?
    It's describe here better than I can.

    http://www.rosary-center.org/ll49n2.htm

    My basic understanding is that the member of the Church for a "mystical body of Christ with Christ as the head.

    Now if a member of the body sins, it causes a weakness or disease within the body which affects the whole body. Let's say for instance someone has decided to "live in sin" and fornicate etc. This damages the whole body of Christ because they are joined by baptism.

    If another person in that same body suffers and decides to "offer up" that suffering in reparation for the sin of first sinner, God can accept this suffering on the part of the sinner and can grant grace to that sinner which he otherwise wouldn't have received. In this way, sinners can be brought back to God who otherwise would have perished due to the hardness of their hearts.

    And this is what Paul is referring to in Coll 1:24. There are many saints over the years who have endured *incredible* suffering for the sake of the Body. e.g. Saint Faustina, Padre Pio, Sr. Josefa Menendez, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, Alexandrina da Costa. Many of them suffered that passion of Christ, the crown of thorns, the scourging, invisible stigmata, searing thirst etc.

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • #87
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    Jesus didn't establish a Church. He established "the Way". There was no word or concept for 'Church' in the Aramaic of 2000 years ago. Paul established your Church not Jesus.
    Maybe you need to read the bible a bit more. "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" Mt 16:18. In the Douay-Rheims bible there are 77 references to church in the NT.

    Anyway most of the Gospels were written in Greek, I think Matthew was written in Aramaic originally and later translated into Greek.


  • #88
    blueandgreen
    Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭blueandgreen


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Maybe you need to read the bible a bit more. "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" Mt 16:18. In the Douay-Rheims bible there are 77 references to church in the NT.

    Anyway most of the Gospels were written in Greek, I think Matthew was written in Aramaic originally and later translated into Greek.

    Human language translation is inherently subjective. As a speaker of four languages, I am acutely aware of how meaning can be lost or distorted during the translation process, particularly a 3-step traduction -e.g. Aramaic->Greek->English. Futhermore, language comprehension is itself, of course, also subjective.

    No wonder it is so difficult to obtain a full agreement on biblical verse (even amongst adherents).

    I am of the opinion that this type of biblical verse quoted out of context in such a manner is archaic and almost entirely irrelevant to the Irish under-30 population (the primary demographic of this forum). Should you wish to see an increase in religious belief on this forum or anywhere else, an alternative approach might be sensible.


  • #89
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    blueandgreen wrote: »
    No wonder it is so difficult to obtain a full agreement on biblical verse (even amongst adherents).
    Yes I agree entirely and hence why I claim that Jesus established a Church to teach us the truth.
    blueandgreen wrote: »
    I am of the opinion that this type of biblical verse quoted out of context in such a manner is archaic and almost entirely irrelevant to the Irish under-30 population (the primary demographic of this forum). Should you wish to see an increase in religious belief on this forum or anywhere else, an alternative approach might be sensible.
    What would you suggest?


  • #90
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Yes. The Body of Christ is the Church but it is holy by virtue of the Head which is Christ.

    The deception is the word 'church'. You have hijacked it, or rather your religion have, to mean 'the roman catholic church'. However, the word was used to denote 'people' not an overlord. It is used to denote true followers of Christ. It had a different meaning in Greek, ekklesia, than it does these days. That is one of your biggest obsticles in seeing truth IMO Noel. You keep looking at 'church' as a big organisation, when realy its a very personal word. You seem to see it as 'well if the RCC is not the true church, then who is the true Church'. The answer is though, True followers of Christ are the church. You need to look at what the meaning was when the word was actually used.
    BTW, you give the impression that the Church is rotten to the core and I find this insulting.
    I do believe its rotten to the core, I never hide that fact. That this insults you, thats regretable, but I've got my reasons.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I see you're conveniently ignoring all the good work done by the Church over the centuries. Are you without sin??
    Like any most organisations man will try to put up a good image, even some of the back patch motorcycle clubs such as the Hells Angels, Bandidos and Outlaws which have had a notorious reputation around the world will put on a "good show" and organise charity events such as toy runs, benefit nights etc. Likewise the Catholic Church has covered up much of its appalling atrocities with good humanitarian works and various campaigns. As Jesus said "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto white sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness". Matthew 23vs13
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Why did Christ establish a Church? For the fun of it? Just a convenient collective pronoun? Who says you can't have a mediator between man and (the human )Jesus?
    Was it Jesus himself that started the Catholic Church? If I were you I would go back through my history books, It was infact Emperor Constantine and not Jesus that started the Roman Catholic Church and that was well into the 3rd century. Constantine legalised "Christianity" and formed his church mixing up a cocktail of old tradition, Christianity and politics.

    What about the Messianic Jews? I would find more credibility in their history than that of the Catholic Church. http://www.messianic.com/articles/basics.htm

    Noel, have you ever personally ask Christ to come into your life and be your mediator?


  • #92
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Was it Jesus himself that started the Catholic Church? If I were you I would go back through my history books, It was infact Emperor Constantine and not Jesus that started the Roman Catholic Church and that was well into the 3rd century. Constantine legalised "Christianity" and formed his church mixing up a cocktail of old tradition, Christianity and politics.
    How do you know that Constantine corrupted the Church? What source do you have for this? And if this were true, what happened to the Church about which Christ promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it? You're claiming the opposite!
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Noel, have you ever personally ask Christ to come into your life and be your mediator?
    Only several times a day.


  • #93
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    kelly1 wrote: »
    How do you know that Constantine corrupted the Church? What source do you have for this?

    He didn't corrupt it, he created it. It was corrupted before that. Paul had already told of the corruption coming into the congregations. It wasn't one big happy family. There was division, Constantine united them under one roof and then proceeded to outlaw the naysayers.
    And if this were true, what happened to the Church about which Christ promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it?

    As I said previously Noel, you need to look at the language and what was meant by ekklesia, which is the word you would translate 'church'. That 'ekklesia, is alive and well in the hearts and minds of all 'followers' of Christ. Not hypocrites who pay lip service etc, but in the actual 'followers' of Christ, ekklesia.
    Only several times a day.
    So you don't need your church to mediate! Gr8, thats a start.


  • #94
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Just back to the rearing a child as an Athiest. I'd imagine I'd tell my kids about how people believe different things happen when we die & different things about who made us.

    I'd tell them I'm 99% sure there is no God/ And I'd have no problem with a Christian/Muslim etc telling them they're 90% sure their belief is true.

    I'm not getting into the indoctrinating as child abuse but I will say telling your kids that your beliefs ARE true is utterly pathetic. You know you'll get a convert with them so you make sure they believe.
    I reckon the reason I'm 1% unsure about god is to do with being taught the garden of eden in the same manner I was my multiplication tables. Little seed planted during a period when adults don't say things that are wrong.

    Also on faith.

    I have faith that if I go down to the bank machine I'll be able to withdraw fifty euro. I have this faith because I just checked my account online & I have enough funds to withdraw.

    When you ask a Christian why they believe in God they say Faith, though no logical explanation as to why they have it.


  • #95
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    When you ask a Christian why they believe in God they say Faith, though no logical explanation as to why they have it.
    Christians should know this and reason is that faith is a God-given grace.


  • #96
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,849 ✭✭✭condra


    How convenient.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Christians should know this and reason is that faith is a God-given grace.

    So why doesn't everyone have it?


  • #98
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Just back to the rearing a child as an Athiest. I'd imagine I'd tell my kids about how people believe different things happen when we die & different things about who made us..

    I tell my kids the same.

    I
    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    I'd tell them I'm 99% sure there is no God/ And I'd have no problem with a Christian/Muslim etc telling them they're 90% sure their belief is true..
    How are you 99% sure that there is no God? What is your proof behinfd that statement?
    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    I'm not getting into the indoctrinating as child abuse but I will say telling your kids that your beliefs ARE true is utterly pathetic. You know you'll get a convert with them so you make sure they believe.
    I reckon the reason I'm 1% unsure about god is to do with being taught the garden of eden in the same manner I was my multiplication tables. Little seed planted during a period when adults don't say things that are wrong..

    You are telling your kids that what you believe is 99% true. So you are indoctrinating your kids. Pot calling th ekettle here?

    Difference here is that what I am telling my kids I am 100% sure about.


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    I have faith that if I go down to the bank machine I'll be able to withdraw fifty euro. I have this faith because I just checked my account online & I have enough funds to withdraw.

    When you ask a Christian why they believe in God they say Faith, though no logical explanation as to why they have it.


    I have faith that if I ask God to look after me, He does. He has in the past shown His faithfulness to me and I knoe He'll continue to do so.

    What you are talking about isn't really faith. That is concrete. A Christian puts their faith in God to run their lives. I hope you're noit trusting the ATM with your life?


  • #99
    kelly1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    So why doesn't everyone have it?
    grace doesn't force us, it *tends* to turn us towards God.


  • #100
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Maybe you need to read the bible a bit more. "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" Mt 16:18. In the Douay-Rheims bible there are 77 references to church in the NT.

    Anyway most of the Gospels were written in Greek, I think Matthew was written in Aramaic originally and later translated into Greek.

    On the contrary Noel, it is useless me reading the bible a bit more, maybe you will need to explain to me what Aramaic word was used in place of 'Church' because at the time there wasn't one. It seems to me that people can't talk about things unless they have the words and concepts to underpin them. How can I order that something be built if nobody has ever heard of the structure I want and I myself do not have the word for it?


  • #101
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,849 ✭✭✭condra


    kelly1 wrote: »
    grace doesn't force us, it *tends* to turn us towards God.

    Have you any evidence for this?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement