A la carte catholics ... for or against?

Choochtown

I've met very few if any catholics who are not "a la carte". Some "rules" are convieniently ignored to suit themselves: eg. contraception, mass every Sunday, confession before communion so as to "receive the lord" with a clean soul etc etc.

It used to really bug me. I remember screaming at a radio when someone got so upset because a priest wouldn't hear her confession as she'd got divorced!! Leaving this religon which wouldn't accept her perfectly reasonable and legal choice just wasn't an option. How could someone follow 1 ridiculous rule for no logical reason than they were told to by a man in a dress but completely ignore another? ... and then still want to be in the man in a dress's gang?

Now I'm starting to think ... A la cartism is much more prevalent in Ireland than ever before. Maybe I should be pleased people like this exist. Is this some sort of evolving process whereas the influence of this particular religon will die out in the not too distant future?

Zillah

I think it's likely that rampant 'a la cartism' represents the death throes of a religion. So on one hand I'm quite happy that their beliefs are thus, but then again, to use a metaphor; the Catholic Church is running on fumes...those fumes are the lingering a la carte Catholics. Every time mommy puts Catholic down for the whole family on the census she breathes a trace of life back into that institution.

The real problem is getting people's minds free from credulous modes of thinking, because even if Catholicism dies off, something else is likely to take root. PDN, I'm sure, would be quite eager to show them the Evangelical light.

Dades

I guess the answer would depend on the alternatives - 'proper' catholics or non-catholics.

mohawk

I only have an opinion on A la carte catholics when they judge me. Example is my aunt who had an affair with a married man then had 5 kids with him while living with him. So clearly the rules of the catholic church don't apply to her. Yet she is the first one to mouth off at me not christening my son . She said to me one day what if he dies he will go to hell. Err hello?? there is no hell.
Apart from her I have no problems with catholics picking and choosing their rules. Especially as before there were a la carte catholics we sent away women who got pregnant before marriage and being gay was just a no. We are better off.

Calibos

The most beautiful irony are all those proud a la carte catholics, who but for the grace of God might have been born protestant, but who don't know what transubstantiation really means. Ask nearly any a la carte whether they believe that when the priest says the magic words that the wafer and wine as actually really turned into the body and blood of Christ. "Ah sure don't be silly, sure isn't that one o dem metaphors". Eh? No its not. You Sir are actually a mere virgin birth away from being a protestant!!

Galvasean

We are currently seeing what I call 'extreme a la carte Catholocism'. We now have Catholics campaigning aginst their own Church wanting it to be changed to suit them. Whenever I hear Catholics bemoaning the lack of women priests, letting priests marry etc. I wonder exactly what kind of Church they think they are subscribed to, a democratic one?

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

We are currently seeing what I call 'extreme a la carte Catholocism'. We now have Catholics campaigning aginst their own Church wanting it to be changed to suit them. Whenever I hear Catholics bemoaning the lack of women priests, letting priests marry etc. I wonder exactly what kind of Church they think they are subscribed to, a democratic one?

At least the devoted/extreme (whichever way you want to put it) catholics and christians have some conviction in their beliefs.

I had this discussion with family members before about whether I'd get a child baptised, I said no as they wouldnt raised catholic anyway, cue "child will wind up in hell" argument, this is from people who go to mass once a year because they "have to" and only get any way religious at funerals and christenings.

I do laugh at the a la carters though, Adam and Eve was "just a story" whereas Jesus, miracle virgin birth, 3 day respawn time, all that stuff is "true", well its all from the same book, so its either one or the other...I have a workmate who's a catholic and honestly doesnt believe dinosaurs existed, as in they were made up creatures, despite the fact you can stroll into any half decent museum and see the evidence for yourself,although she also believes in psychics and faith healers so i suppose when it comes to mad beliefs when it rains, it pours.

Galvasean

krudler wrote: »

I have a workmate who's a catholic and honestly doesnt believe dinosaurs existed,

Every time someone says they don't believe in dinosaurs one drops dead

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

Every time someone says they don't believe in dinosaurs one drops dead

"I do believe in dinosaurs, I do believe in dinosaurs"
*clap clap clap clap*

lmaopml

Choochtown wrote: »

I've met very few if any catholics who are not "a la carte". Some "rules" are convieniently ignored to suit themselves: eg. contraception, mass every Sunday, confession before communion so as to "receive the lord" with a clean soul etc etc.

It used to really bug me. I remember screaming at a radio when someone got so upset because a priest wouldn't hear her confession as she'd got divorced!! Leaving this religon which wouldn't accept her perfectly reasonable and legal choice just wasn't an option. How could someone follow 1 ridiculous rule for no logical reason than they were told to by a man in a dress but completely ignore another? ... and then still want to be in the man in a dress's gang?

Now I'm starting to think ... A la cartism is much more prevalent in Ireland than ever before. Maybe I should be pleased people like this exist. Is this some sort of evolving process whereas the influence of this particular religon will die out in the not too distant future?

Hi Choochtown,

I had a thread pretty similar in Christianity forum a while back, only from an alternate ( Catholic ) perspective..:)

As a onetime 'a la carte' Catholic, who used to z'd with the best of em, and would have been an agnostic, rather dubious and non interested sort until I hit my mid twenties when I started wondering what the heck it was all about 'really'...

...and now - somebody with a renewed interest, at first in the objective psychology of faith, and then rather tentatively in the possibility of this thing called 'faith' which is a dirty word to some, and worth so much to others...I think I was an 'observer' for a long time, and then I did full circle and came back to my Catholic faith because, for me, there is a terrible beauty to it..( I know this won't get a whole lot of hip hips in the atheist forum lol )

I rather love my a la carte companions, and believe me they probably 'bug' the judgemental perfect Catholics as much, if not more than the atheists or those of other faiths..

...actually, I think we bug just about everybody..lol....we're the ones caught in between, we either drift away or we move on to another faith or we actually take the time to look at our own..

I think, that a la carte Catholics are just like any other person of any other faith. Some are luke warm for a time and some go cold and leave and others don't.

I have no problem with A la Carte Catholics, they are just people same as anybody else who probably have tremendous faith but just don't commit at the time.......Personally, I like to think of them as prodigal sons...

Pushtrak

It makes perfect sense that there would be a la carte Catholics, a la carte ____. The way I think of this is to use an analogy. Take politics, someone who doesn't look into politics that much might not vote, or might vote based on how the candidate looks. But not really care too much about it. They have to go to the polling booth to vote.

Religion on the other hand, we are living in the voting booth. We have our ballots on us, and we go on with whatever we have ticked. Some of us go around with it on our sleeves, some of us as a badge. And then, you have those who use it as a club.

The reason for the success of a la carte Catholicism specifically in Ireland is not putting much thought into it combined with how strong Pascal's Wager is to people who don't really think about things. It isn't a particularly deep person who'd have to be aware of Pascal's Wager in the absence of hearing it constructed by the fundamentals.

People don't look into things. When this comes up, and a person says they are Catholic, I'll get talking about the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution and genetic stuff. Basic stuff within them because I'm not an expert and probably not all that well as it usually comes up when drinking. But it is funny how some really simple kind of stuff can get the reaction of "What? I didn't know that...." and then show this information online verified numerous times over.

But people don't like to think too much on it. And I sometimes get "why do you think so much about religion?" or "Why do you care ____" or some derivative. I don't like that development because it isn't considering the discussion. It just derails it in me trying to explain why I'm interested. And what of it? If someone was talking to me on something and illustrated somewhere I was wrong be it religion or anything, I wouldn't care about what motivated them to bring up the point. I'd be considering the point and treat it on its own terms.

Stercus Accidit

Al la carte followers may be a flimsy foundation for a religion to be built on, but there are plenty of them to prop it up.

robindch

Choochtown wrote: »

Now I'm starting to think ... A la cartism is much more prevalent in Ireland than ever before. [...] Is this some sort of evolving process whereas the influence of this particular religon will die out in the not too distant future?

Nail on the head -- religion is the product of evolution, but evolution which takes place within the cultural domain, rather than the genetic domain.

Think of it this way. The genetic evolution that we know and love produces mostly-faithful copies of one or more parents, and the children can then go on to reproduce themselves if they survive to reproduction age and meet whatever reproduction conditions are required. Since most parents can (and many do) produce more children than can be supported by the environment, the number of kids must be reduced at some point to the levels which the environment can sustain. This is called "natural selection" and it's what Darwin came up with. In this case, DNA is the genotype (the information carrier) and organisms are the phenotype (the final result).

The same idea applies in cultural space, where the human brain can consume a huge amount of ideas, but doesn't have enough capacity to pass on every idea it consumes. Hence, an analogous process of winnowing takes place in which only the ideas which are believed by the brain to be most worthy of transmission are actually transmitted. And ideas which assert that they are vital to the safety of the species and which can successfully convince people to believe this assertion, then these ideas are more likely to be transmitted than those that don't make such grandiose claims about themselves. In this case, the idea is both genotype and phenotype and religion, as you'll have noticed, is not short of grandiose claims about itself.

Hence, as with genetic evolution, cultural phenotypes are also subject to heredity, variation and fecundity (as genetic ones are with organisms) are known as memes, following a coining by Richard Dawkins back in the mid-seventies.

In this sense, what you shouldn't get so wound up about what's on the radio -- on the contrary, what you're hearing is the wheels of evolution in action and in this sense, every religious person is an a-la-cartist, whether they care to admit it or not.

Karl Hungus

One thing you have to consider is that it is quite impossible for people to follow everything that is in the bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95hH1H5qK08

In fact, I would say that just about every demonination of christians are "a la carte" with the only difference being just how a la carte they are.

amacachi

Galvasean wrote: »

We are currently seeing what I call 'extreme a la carte Catholocism'. We now have Catholics campaigning aginst their own Church wanting it to be changed to suit them. Whenever I hear Catholics bemoaning the lack of women priests, letting priests marry etc. I wonder exactly what kind of Church they think they are subscribed to, a democratic one?

Usually when I hear a "Catholic" giving out about elements of the Catholic church there's a piece of advice that can be given that may sound like it's being cheeky but in a lot of cases is quite good advice; join the CoI.

Max Power1

I would consider myself to be atheist. I should add that I have as much respect for religion as I do a piece of dirt on my shoe.

I, however, have even less respect for "pick and choose" religious people.

If you join a club, you must follow all the rules. You cannot, for example, join a golf club and decide to ignore the dress code rule.

MagicMarker

I don't understand how anyone can believe the bible to be the word of God yet happily ignore 90% of it. Personally, if I truly believed that I would be punished for eternity for not following the word of God then you can be damn sure I would follow it to the letter!

What's worse are the people who pretty much reject all forms of organised religion/the bible and just keep the bit where God looks over us, answers our prayers, and then we all go to heaven in the end.

Karl Hungus

Guys, I don't see how you can have less respect for someone who picks and chooses what parts of the bible they adhere to and what parts they do, because everyone does it. Everyone. It is simply not possible to adhere to everything the bible is against. Not wearing fabric made from 2 kinds of thread? Not approaching the alter of god if your sight is defect? As above, in The Chaser's War clip I posted, stoning your child to death for cursing you. All Christians pick and choose to some degree or another.

krudler

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can believe the bible to be the word of God yet happily ignore 90% of it. Personally, if I truly believed that I would be punished for eternity for not following the word of God then you can be damn sure I would follow it to the letter!

What's worse are the people who pretty much reject all forms of organised religion/the bible and just keep the bit where God looks over us, answers our prayers, and then we all go to heaven in the end.

Thats what I cant get either, ask your bog standard christian if adam and eve were real or noah really did build a floating menagerie and they'll probably tell you its just a story or analogy, but Jesus being resurrected? no thats gospel truth, despite the fact theres no evidence to support anything in it, makes no sense. Why claim one part is the true word of god but the really crazy stuff isnt?

antiskeptic

Choochtown wrote: »

I've met very few if any catholics who are not "a la carte". Some "rules" are convieniently ignored to suit themselves: eg. contraception, mass every Sunday, confession before communion so as to "receive the lord" with a clean soul etc etc.

It used to really bug me. I remember screaming at a radio when someone got so upset because a priest wouldn't hear her confession as she'd got divorced!! Leaving this religon which wouldn't accept her perfectly reasonable and legal choice just wasn't an option. How could someone follow 1 ridiculous rule for no logical reason than they were told to by a man in a dress but completely ignore another? ... and then still want to be in the man in a dress's gang?

Now I'm starting to think ... A la cartism is much more prevalent in Ireland than ever before. Maybe I should be pleased people like this exist. Is this some sort of evolving process whereas the influence of this particular religon will die out in the not too distant future?

Christianity poses a reason for this state of affairs. It might not be the reason applicable to this particular case - but it is a potential at least.

As you are probably aware, in Chrisitianity the world is divided into only two classes of people: the lost and the found. And the fact that someone identifies as Christian (in this case R. Catholic) doesn't mean they actually are a Christian as defined by God. So let's suppose this woman isn't.

As a Roman-Catholic-but-lost person, she can be expected to exhibit core traits of a lost person, one of which is the positioning of self on 'the throne'. What self on the throne involves is the law of God being (part)dispensed with in order that the person can live life more in keeping with their own wishes. Gods law, in so far as it cramps their style, is dispensed with.

Categorically speaking, this woman is no different than the atheists who frequent this forum. The atheist too can assemble his rules on what is right and wrong in anyway that pleases him - in order that he can live like more in keeping with his own desires. Like the Roman Catholic woman, there is this tension between feeling the need to obey the law of God (installed, as a knowledge of the law is in everyone, whether they believe in God or not) and the sinners desire to be free of the shackles when it acts to restrain a person from sin.

How the atheist can wriggle from under the charge of a la carteism is beyond me - the atheist is the one who decides which laws apply to himself ... and more importantly, when they are to apply and why. If they decide that such and such is no longer 'wrong' then they merely have to switch their view and call that wrong 'right'. Much as the Roman Catholic woman is doing*.



(*I'm not suggesting that going to Mass is God's law (I don't believe it is). The point is to highlight the impossibility of a lost person subjecting themselves to law - whoever they consider the lawgiver to be)

antiskeptic

Max Power1 wrote: »

I would consider myself to be atheist. I should add that I have as much respect for religion as I do a piece of dirt on my shoe.

I, however, have even less respect for "pick and choose" religious people.

If you join a club, you must follow all the rules. You cannot, for example, join a golf club and decide to ignore the dress code rule.

Of course, as an atheist, you are a member of your own personal club and can adhere to whatever set of rules you like for whatever reasons you like. And you can, of course, change things whenever you like.

Which is about as limitless a 'pick and choose' as one could possibly wish for.

antiskeptic

krudler wrote: »

Thats what I cant get either, ask your bog standard christian if adam and eve were real or noah really did build a floating menagerie and they'll probably tell you its just a story or analogy,

If you asked that question over in the Christianity forum you'd probably see the point, which rests on this claim, going the way of the dodo.

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can believe the bible to be the word of God yet happily ignore 90% of it. Personally, if I truly believed that I would be punished for eternity for not following the word of God then you can be damn sure I would follow it to the letter!

FYI.

The point of the detailed Law (whose spirit is fairly well summed up in the 10 commandments) is to show you that you're a hopeless sinner. The definition of a hopeless sinner suggests that even if you truly believed, you couldn't keep God's law for a day - never mind a life time. Ask a Roman Catholic on his way to the confession box. Which is why you need a saviour. And why God provided one.

The point of giving the Law wasn't that we were expected to keep it - that would have been completely unreasonable :rolleyes:

Max Power1

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course, as an atheist, you are a member of your own personal club and can adhere to whatever set of rules you like for whatever reasons you like. And you can, of course, change things whenever you like.

Which is about as limitless a 'pick and choose' as one could possibly wish for.

No.
I just dont need a celestial sun god (or whatever it is people worship these days) to define my morality.

I also find logic, discovery, experimentation and critical thought to be a hell of a lot more reliable than a circa 1500 year old book.

Waking-Dreams

Digging a hole there AS; did you remember to pack your ejector seat? Just teasing.

Atheism does not have a rule book; a set of laws for how to live in servitude of some invisible deity that will reward obedience and punish dissent. One can change the “rules” because there are no “rules”. It's like choosing to wear pants today instead of shorts. Nowhere was it ever mentioned that a person could only do one but not the other.

Catholicism has lots of rules but over the years has gradually scaled them back, and moderated their intolerance because public opinion deemed them a bit “old fashioned” or silly. Enough people finally said, “right, enough with these stupid rules, we're not school children are we?”. But if the church is open to scaling back their rules at all, which we now know, how do they choose which ones? Did enough people have to start eating meat on a friday for them to drop the ball?

Just like the divorce referendum many years ago in this country. It would never have come about unless people were first separating and breaking the church's law to begin with. Yet, it's actually quite natural for humans to separate, defect, and engage in lots of other unsavoury things in their strategies for mating – which is, afterall, why we are here – to survive and replicate. These behaviours, good and bad (from intense love to sexual jealousy) all came about because of natural/sexual selection. Read up on some evolutionary psychology if you don't believe me.

Humans cooperate with one another because it is in their selfish interest to do so. Obeying certain rules simply helps us to avoid conflict with others and go about our goals unobstructed. And looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, this is how things have played out for a long time. There are always people who will try and buck the rules but as humans evolved ways to outsmart others, in turn, people then learned ways how to detect such behaviour and on and on it went.

Religions simply adopted the existing moral landscape that humans had evolved and preceded to dictate their new “rules of the game” as they saw fit. That's it.

Max Power1

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you asked that question over in the Christianity forum you'd probably see the point, which rests on this claim, going the way of the dodo.

so how do christians know which part of the bible is analogy and which part is to be revered then?

Do we use common sense? Logic (not compatible with religion)? Our own intuition? Or just pick which rules we want to obey and which ones we dont?

If I was a christian, I would probably be going for the Bart Simpson approach - "A lifetime of sin, followed by a presto-changeo deathbed repentance"- in that case.

seamus

I would be interested to know if this phenomenon of a la carte Catholics has appeared elsewhere in the world, or in other denominations.

Ireland has a rather interesting way of looking at religion, no doubt due to the way Irish people have been mostly raised. We view our Catholicism as rather like our nationality - something which we've been born into, which cannot be changed. We don't view it as a club, or as a choice. This is no doubt down to the RCC's practice of indoctrination from birth and bringing children through most of their major rituals before they're old enough to even understand what it is they're taking part in. I had renounced my religion before I knew what "transubstantiation" was - I had gone through the sacrament of communion (and another 5 or 6 years of masses) without ever hearing that word. Isn't it a little odd that a religion would bring someone through one of its rituals without explaining the core tenat of that ritual?

As we've become accustomed to being "a la carte" in everyday life and having the right to vote and choose in relation to how our country runs, then no doubt we expect to have the same rights when it comes to our religion - the rules are incompatible with how we want to live, but we feel like we have no other choice. Catholicism being uncharacteristically weak-willed at the moment about the enforcement of these rules, also serves to strenghten people's belief that they can participate to whatever degree they like and still call themselves "Catholic".

Yes, a la carte Catholicism creates pain and hassle for everyone else because as said above, it means that Catholics can claim numbers far above their station in this country and makes them thing that anyone gives a damn what they have to say about public matters. Passive acceptance and participation in their rituals (such as baptism and communion) also gives them the purchase to maintain a strangehold on our education system.

The real pain for the Catholic church is coming though. Ratzinger is going to get more and more hardline as his years go on. With any luck, he will start making decrees banning a la carte Catholics from participating in church sacraments and other religious rituals and the Irish people will be forced to choose - your religion or your freedom. And most of them will choose the latter, leading to the end of the RCC in Ireland.

antiskeptic

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

did you remember to pack your ejector seat?

Famous last words

Atheism does not have a rule book; a set of laws for how to live in servitude of some invisible deity that will reward obedience and punish dissent. One can change the “rules” because there are no “rules”. It's like choosing to wear pants today instead of shorts. Nowhere was it ever mentioned that a person could only do one but not the other.

Precisely. An atheists ethical/moral code is precisely what he wants it to be. He can change it at will. Ultimate a la carte-ism in other words.

Catholicism has lots of rules but over the years has gradually scaled them back, and moderated their intolerance because public opinion deemed them a bit “old fashioned” or silly. Enough people finally said, “right, enough with these stupid rules, we're not school children are we?”. But if the church is open to scaling back their rules at all, which we now know, how do they choose which ones? Did enough people have to start eating meat on a friday for them to drop the ball?

My point had to do with one a la carte-ist person (the atheist) criticising another (the Roman Catholic) for being an a la carte-ist. Who cares how you go around making up and changing ones moral/ethical code - when the point is that both do it as they please.

Just like the divorce referendum many years ago in this country. It would never have come about unless people were first separating and breaking the church's law to begin with. Yet, it's actually quite natural for humans to separate, defect, and engage in lots of other unsavoury things in their strategies for mating – which is, afterall, why we are here – to survive and replicate. These behaviours, good and bad (from intense love to sexual jealousy) all came about because of natural/sexual selection. Read up on some evolutionary psychology if you don't believe me.

I'm not of the opinion that God gave his law in the expectation that we would follow it - rather, he gave it knowing we would break it. The Catholic church don't seem to have cottoned on to that fact yet. I doubt they ever will.

As for evolution? I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the theory.

Humans cooperate with one another because it is in their selfish interest to do so. Obeying certain rules simply helps us to avoid conflict with others and go about our goals unobstructed. And looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, this is how things have played out for a long time. There are always people who will try and buck the rules but as humans evolved ways to outsmart others, in turn, people then learned ways how to detect such behaviour and on and on it went.

Religions simply adopted the existing moral landscape that humans had evolved and preceded to dictate their new “rules of the game” as they saw fit. That's it.

As I say, the point was narrow and doing only with a la carte-ists pointing the finger at like minded individuals.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Precisely. An atheists ethical/moral code is precisely what he wants it to be. He can change it at will. Ultimate a la carte-ism in other words.

You're aware of what "a la carte" means, both in the gastronomic and religious contexts?

It means that you have a fixed list of things which can choose from, and you choose the thing(s) which you prefer and ignore the rest. This is in contrast to how a religion is supposed to work, where you have a set menu and you eat what you're given.

Atheists cannot be "a la carte", because there's no menu. The Atheist is the chef and he cooks whatever the hell he likes.

I get what you're trying to say, but you're not pulling it off. To continue the analogy, an atheist doesn't go to the restaurant and order "off the menu". He simply just doesn't go to the restaurant at all.

PDN

All of us, atheists and Christians alike, are a la carte people. We weigh up different opinions and claims and we decide whether we agree with them or not.

I belong to a Christian denomination which broadly holds to the same things I believe. But, as a person who likes to think for himself, I disagree with them on a few bits and pieces.

I think the real reason some (I stress some before the accusations of generalisations start flying) atheists hate a la carte Catholicism so much is because it would make Catholics much easier targets if they were just unthinking sheep that swallow everything without thinking.

It must be so annoying when you've spent all night preparing an ambush against papal infallibility and then Auntie Mary says, "Ah, I don't believe in that infallibility stuff myself."

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for evolution? I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the theory.

How unfortunate. The alternative is probably the one thing on the carte nobody should choose.

PDN

seamus wrote: »

This is in contrast to how a religion is supposed to work, where you have a set menu and you eat what you're given.

Wow! That's an impressive generalisation! I've been studying the sociology of religion for 20 years, and I've never learned that religion is supposed to work that way.

seamus

PDN wrote: »

It must be so annoying when you've spent all night preparing an ambush against papal infallibility and then Auntie Mary says, "Ah, I don't believe in that infallibility stuff myself."

No, it's so annoying when someone spends an hour telling you why you should be (or still are!) a Catholic, and then tell you that they in fact don't believe in one or more core tenats of Catholicism and are therefore de facto non-Catholics themselves, but refuse to accept this fact.

Wow! That's an impressive generalisation! I've been studying the sociology of religion for 20 years, and I've never learned that religion is supposed to work that way.

Sorry, substitute "Catholicism" for "a religion" there. Force of habit.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I think the real reason some (I stress some before the accusations of generalisations start flying) atheists hate a la carte Catholicism so much is because it would make Catholics much easier targets if they were just unthinking sheep that swallow everything without thinking.

I suspect the "some" in that suggestion are so small as to be negligible.

A la cartism is just frustrating because people basically aren't catholic - yet purport to be - and keep the rest of the country mired in the past.

antiskeptic

Max Power1 wrote: »

so how do christians know which part of the bible is analogy and which part is to be revered then?

An excellent technique for figuring out what scripture is trying to say is to measure "scripture against scripture". This doesn't prove that scripture is the word of God - but it does divert from the trap of scripture being allowed to say just anything at all.

In the case of Adam-an-actual-person, you could take the view of Jesus and Paul who appeared to view Adam as an actual person rather than something allegorical. First believing that Jesus is God then, that he appeared to consider Adam real ... gives you your answer.

Do we use common sense? Logic (not compatible with religion)? Our own intuition? Or just pick which rules we want to obey and which ones we dont?

It's not that difficult. First get to know God and his nature and you'll easily know how it is you should be living. The problem lies more in living as you know you should and less in figuring out how it is you should be living.

If I was a christian, I would probably be going for the Bart Simpson approach - "A lifetime of sin, followed by a presto-changeo deathbed repentance"- in that case.

As a Christian you would be a beloved child of God. And "God disciplines those whom he loves". Considering the means of disciplining at his disposal and the sheer magnitude of God, I'd be steering a different path to Bart.

But each Christian to his own I say!

krudler

All of us, atheists and Christians alike, are a la carte people. We weigh up different opinions and claims and we decide whether we agree with them or not

But why are a lot of claims made by christianity seen as sacred and others not? if a christian said he didnt really believe Jesus was resurrected after being crucified then could he even be considered a christian? its one of the pillars of being a christian isnt it? so why can a christian say its gods word about the commandments, the virgin birth, resurrection, all that stuff, but a talking snake and a flaming bush? oh thats just a story, theres zero evidence to back up either claim so why hold one as truth and the other as interpretable analogy? Athiests just think its all nonsense.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for evolution? I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the theory.

You "don't subscribe"?

I thought you didn't like "a-la-cartism".

Pushtrak

PDN wrote: »

I think the real reason some (I stress some before the accusations of generalisations start flying) atheists hate a la carte Catholicism so much is because it would make Catholics much easier targets if they were just unthinking sheep that swallow everything without thinking.

I can't speak for anyone else, but why it bothers me is that a la carte Catholics at least have shown they can think. And it can irritate that they just can't bring that thinking far enough to lose the rest of the baggage with what they have discarded.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

You "don't subscribe"?

I thought you didn't like "a-la-cartism".

Who knew you could be a-la-cart with reality?

Ickle Magoo

PDN wrote: »

I think the real reason some (I stress some before the accusations of generalisations start flying) atheists hate a la carte Catholicism so much is because it would make Catholics much easier targets if they were just unthinking sheep that swallow everything without thinking.

It must be so annoying when you've spent all night preparing an ambush against papal infallibility and then Auntie Mary says, "Ah, I don't believe in that infallibility stuff myself."

I don't think it's got anything to do with that really, I don't know anyone who spends all night preparing to ambush auntie mary about papal infallibility - I also don't think it's limited to a la carte catholicism, I've heard the point made about all canteen christians.

I hear things about religion and think it pretty much all sounds ludicrous but canteen christians somehow manage to admit that yes, certain aspects are ludicrous and yet manage convince themselves that other things from this very same source are perfectly sensible. It's the ability to write off X, Y and Z as being beyond fanciful (or allegorical I believe some call it) and yet will merrily believe - and even try to convince others - that despite ignoring certain aspects and creating their own interpretations of others; A, B & C is completely logical and believable and makes perfect sense.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

You're aware of what "a la carte" means, both in the gastronomic and religious contexts?

It means that you have a fixed list of things which can choose from, and you choose the thing(s) which you prefer and ignore the rest. This is in contrast to how a religion is supposed to work, where you have a set menu and you eat what you're given.

I was assuming the everyday use of the phrase "having it whatever way you like it" was the basis of the criticism. Which is how an atheist has his moral/ethical code.

As for the narrower point of picking and choosing from the Roman Catholic menu? I see no problem with that per se: we all break the rules of society from time to time and don't worry particularily about it.

krudler

King Mob wrote: »

Who knew you could be a-la-cart with reality?

I dont subscribe to the theory of gravity, I float to work every day.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

You "don't subscribe"?

I thought you didn't like "a-la-cartism".

I don't mind it at all. What I mind is one a la carte-ist criticising another a la carte-ist for being an a la carte-ist

krudler

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was assuming the everyday use of the phrase "having it whatever way you like it" was the basis of the criticism. Which is how an atheist has his moral/ethical code.

As for the narrower point of picking and choosing from the Roman Catholic menu? I see no problem with that per se: we all break the rules of society from time to time and don't worry particularily about it.

Why bother with any of it then?

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was assuming the everyday use of the phrase "having it whatever way you like it" was the basis of the criticism. Which is how an atheist has his moral/ethical code.

Well that's a la carte morality - and a quick scan of the papers most weeks reveals atheists are hardly the only ones doing that.

PDN

krudler wrote: »

But why are a lot of claims made by christianity seen as sacred and other not? if a christian said he didnt really believe Jesus was resurrected after being crucified then could he even be considered a christian? its one of the pillars of being a christian isnt it? so why can a christian say its gods word about the commandments, the virgin birth, resurrection, all that stuff, but a talking snake and a flaming bush? oh thats just a story, theres zero evidence to back up either claim so why hold one as truth and the other as interpretable analogy? Athirsts just think its all nonsense.

My knowledge of Athirsts is rather scanty unfortunately.

Biblical scholars apply similar criteria to the Bible as literary critics do to other books (and indeed as we do to language everyday) in order to discern whether the authors intended something to be taken literally or as a metaphor.

This has been pointed out time and time again in these fora, and the usual response is for atheists to change the subject while Athirsts just dismiss it all as nonsense.

krudler

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't mind it at all. What I mind is one a la carte-ist criticising another a la carte-ist for being an a la carte-ist

How can an athiest be a la carte-ist? its like someone saying they dont believe in god, but do believe jesus could walk on water and heal the sick, and that adam and eve were the first two humans, then you clearly arent an athiest. Do I think jesus was a real historical figure? probably, but miracle working, water walkin son of god? nah.

PDN

Pushtrak wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else, but why it bothers me is that a la carte Catholics at least have shown they can think. And it can irritate that they just can't bring that thinking far enough to lose the rest of the baggage with what they have discarded.

Ah, so it irritates you that people who evidently have the ability to think don't necessarily agree with all your thinking on the subject of religion.

Hmmm, some of us might have the humility to view that as a potential learning encounter rather than an irritation.

krudler

PDN wrote: »

My knowledge of Athirsts is rather scanty unfortunately.

Biblical scholars apply similar criteria to the Bible as literary critics do to other books (and indeed as we do to language everyday) in order to discern whether the authors intended something to be taken literally or as a metaphor.

This has been pointed out time and time again in these fora, and the usual response is for atheists to change the subject while Athirsts just dismiss it all as nonsense.

Now now, no need to pick on a simple (and since corrected) spelling mistake, you've created an air of pomposity about yourself far too great to reduce yourself to such minor nitpicking

Dades

To paraphase Jimmy Carr on atheists being arrogent - "I think the word you're looking for is 'correct'..." :pac:

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was assuming the everyday use of the phrase "having it whatever way you like it" was the basis of the criticism. Which is how an atheist has his moral/ethical code.

The everyday use of "a la carte" is equivalent to "picking and choosing", and not necessarily having it whatever way you like it. It literally means, "by the card", meaning that you have a card listing your options and you pick and choose what you like out of those options.

Your attempt to show that atheists are equally "a la carte" as Catholic is just plain false. If anything, atheists are bound by a much stricter rule; "There is no God". You cannot pick and choose there, an "a la carte" atheist is by definition a theist.