If your interested in religion you should just become a priest.

Onesimus

I've had this said to me before. My cousin figured that because I am interested in Theology and Catholic spirituality and so on that I should just become a priest. It seems like people think that being close to the Lord is somehow something only for the religious. Its a dangerous thought methinks. I had a friend once who said ''Good for you, I'm just not into that'' as if to mark religion as some sort of sub-category of things deemed more important to society in which it is a ''hobby'' rather than a reality, way of life in which we were created for and is a serious business.

It would seem as if secularization has dumbed down religion somewhat to something you just happen to be ''into'', a sort of hobby or phase that people often pass through like an interest in chess or something that eventually fades out as one gets older.

Have you ever come across this trend in others when the discussion of religion comes up?

pwurple

Obviously, having faith is very different to having a vocation.

But, I've said something very similar "Good for you, I'm not into that" to an athiest. So It would be hypocritical of me to agree with the rest of your post. I think what may be happening is how vocal you are may be making people uncomfortable. I felt I was being 'preached' at by said athiest, a conversion attempt almost. It was attempt to get them to stop... somewhat politely.

doctoremma

Religion (as opposed to faith) IS something you do, a choice to follow certain rules and rituals in your life. I'm not sure that makes it akin to a 'hobby' though and suspect people who say 'I'm not into that' are simply ending the conversation. I might say the same, with no hidden meaning in my words.

tommy2bad

Very hard for people to see that for us who do believe that it isn't a 'lifestyle choice'.
Sadly people think of life in terms of products and choices. Religion is one more subscription to add to an already oversubscribed life.
Not realy their fault, thats how it is sold by the churches as well. Football on Monday, Tai Chi on Friday and church on Sunday.

Onesimus

I was coming more so from those who would have been brought up Catholic and would consider getting married in the Church and so on and would seem quite distanced from the faith and would probably go to Church every third sunday or when they feel like it. I've had most say ''oh so you like all this yeah? I wouldnt be into that''. I wouldn't even propose a conversation about God infact its been said to me by some who actually start talking about God in the first place, and as you do, you entertain the discussion.

Gumbi

Onesimus wrote: »

I was coming more so from those who would have been brought up Catholic and would consider getting married in the Church and so on and would seem quite distanced from the faith and would probably go to Church every third sunday or when they feel like it. I've had most say ''oh so you like all this yeah? I wouldnt be into that''. I wouldn't even propose a conversation about God infact its been said to me by some who actually start talking about God in the first place, and as you do, you entertain the discussion.

Those kind of people bother me. Never go to mass/pay for the upkeep of the church and then get married in one. Quite hypocritical, and dishonest.

philologos

What about Christian witness in our workplaces? Remember ministry isn't confined to church. There's a whole world out there who need to repent and acknowledge Jesus as Lord.

TheFlyingPig

Thats a great point phililogos and one I have been working on at work myself. I heard a homily a few months ago that said there may be a reason you're the only religious person at work (or one of the few) - you may be sent to bring some light there. When I started telling people at work I prayed for them they were happy about it - it probably helps that I'm not judgemental either. Many people I know associate being religeous with the local parish busybody whos full of false piety and gossip. I try to get across that its a bit more bright and vibrant than that.

It can be frustrating when those who are distanced from the faith use the church for marriage etc but I think its better to be positive about anyone going to church at all. I got a call back to my faith at a random mass when I was distanced from the faith. Why not them? I try to remenber that the Lord has cancelled my debts so I must not pursue theirs.

Northclare

It's kinda ironic really isn't it.
The people who say they are not interested in Religion seem to have an interest in Religion.

Their negative obsession with God,Religion,Spirituality etc is a total contradiction to common sense.

I have no interest in certain subjects,and I can detach myself emotionally and intellectually from those subjects.

Why can't Atheists get help for their resentment twoards Religion,God etc

That mental obsession must be hard to live with.

Telpis

doctoremma

tommy2bad wrote: »

Very hard for people to see that for us who do believe that it isn't a 'lifestyle choice'.

I think it's very difficult to pin down religion/faith with words like "hobby" and "lifestyle choice", especially in casual conversation where people bandy words about without intending to be precise/specific. From my POV, trying to pin down such labels (and their validity, if any) needs a division between religion and faith as well (as I don't "categorise" those two in the same box).

Maybe we can start by agreeing on what might constitute a genuine "lifestyle choice" .v. "expression of something intrinsic to your character"? I'd say that subscribing to a political party or a religion is a lifestyle choice. I'd say being a "liberal" or being a "believer" is intrinsic to your character. Any thoughts on that type of categorisation?

I do not eat meat, and have been through two "stages" of vegetarianism:
1. In the early stage, it wasn't really a conscious choice, more a natural expression of my horror at animal welfare standards etc. I would have defended the statement "I AM vegetarian", where "am" indicates something central to my being.
2. With improving conditions and so on, animal welfare concerns have now become secondary to a variety of environmental and political reasons. I no longer consider my vegetarianism as an intrinsic part of my nature, it is a conscious choice. For sure, that choice is likely a reflection of particular traits of my character, but in itself is still a choice.

In my head, this ties with faith and religion in a similar fashion. "Faith" is intrinsic to your character (I don't follow the argument that belief in anything - or not - is a choice), while "religion" is a choice made to express that aspect of your character. From the outside looking in, it is utterly alien to me that someone feels Catholicism (insert any religion here) is intrinsic to their character, whereas I can completely see that faith might be described as such.

TL;DR - IMO, "faith" is intrinsic to character, "religion" is a choice made to express that aspect of character.

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

I have no interest in certain subjects,and I can detach myself emotionally and intellectually from those subjects.

Why can't Atheists get help for their resentment twoards Religion,God etc

That mental obsession must be hard to live with.

As has been pointed out to you many times, atheists care about religion because it affects their lives and, sometimes, their freedoms. If you're questioning why, say, a gay person might tend to be a little antagonistic towards conservative religions or believers, then you need to wake up.

It's very easy to be apathetic if something doesn't affect you in any way.

tommy2bad

doctoremma wrote: »

I think it's very difficult to pin down religion/faith with words like "hobby" and "lifestyle choice", especially in casual conversation where people bandy words about without intending to be precise/specific. From my POV, trying to pin down such labels (and their validity, if any) needs a division between religion and faith as well (as I don't "categorise" those two in the same box).

Maybe we can start by agreeing on what might constitute a genuine "lifestyle choice" .v. "expression of something intrinsic to your character"? I'd say that subscribing to a political party or a religion is a lifestyle choice. I'd say being a "liberal" or being a "believer" is intrinsic to your character. Any thoughts on that type of categorisation?

I do not eat meat, and have been through two "stages" of vegetarianism:
1. In the early stage, it wasn't really a conscious choice, more a natural expression of my horror at animal welfare standards etc. I would have defended the statement "I AM vegetarian", where "am" indicates something central to my being.
2. With improving conditions and so on, animal welfare concerns have now become secondary to a variety of environmental and political reasons. I no longer consider my vegetarianism as an intrinsic part of my nature, it is a conscious choice. For sure, that choice is likely a reflection of particular traits of my character, but in itself is still a choice.

In my head, this ties with faith and religion in a similar fashion. "Faith" is intrinsic to your character (I don't follow the argument that belief in anything - or not - is a choice), while "religion" is a choice made to express that aspect of your character. From the outside looking in, it is utterly alien to me that someone feels Catholicism (insert any religion here) is intrinsic to their character, whereas I can completely see that faith might be described as such.

TL;DR - IMO, "faith" is intrinsic to character, "religion" is a choice made to express that aspect of character.

Thats what I mean, almost.
I would say that Catholicism is an orientation rather than a choice. I am a believer, I am inclined towards catholicism, I choose the RCC.
I can reject the RCC without abandoning catholicism, I can leave Catholicism without loosing my faith and even then let go of Christianity without becoming an unbeliever.
A lot of people are in the believer but not Christian or catholic or RCC category. Perhaps their are people in the RCC, catholic, Christian camp without any belief at all. It's a social thing.
A lot of people now seem to separate the bits out and don't see that being a believer leads to a religion, they seem to view religion as purely a social phenomena.

philologos

I don't agree that faith was intrinsic to my character. Rather simply I was convinced by examining the case for Christianity, the relevant eyewitness accounts and the evidence we have in their favour that Christianity was true. As a result I can trust in the Gospel. Nothing to do with my prior character.

doctoremma

tommy2bad wrote: »

A lot of people are in the believer but not Christian or catholic or RCC category. Perhaps their are people in the RCC, catholic, Christian camp without any belief at all. It's a social thing.
A lot of people now seem to separate the bits out and don't see that being a believer leads to a religion, they seem to view religion as purely a social phenomena.

For sure. Here in the UK, we have 70% of people ticking the Christianity box in the census, 5% attending church with any semblance of regularity and 35% of people claiming a belief in god. Those figures don't exactly tally!

Figures like that make it abundantly clear that there are significant subgroups of people who claim religion but not god and who claim religion but don't actually do anything religious.

It's difficult for me to recognise the truth of your statement (italicised) because, in my daily life, I've never seen a particularly strong connection (or, rather, a "necessary" connection). And being surrounded by religious non-believers/non-religious believers/any other combo means that it's very easy for me (in my head) to separate "faith" and "religion". I'm sure for the devout, this concept of separation might seem bizarre.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

I don't agree that faith was intrinsic to my character. Rather simply I was convinced by examining the case for Christianity, the relevant eyewitness accounts and the evidence we have in their favour that Christianity was true. As a result I can trust in the Gospel. Nothing to do with my prior character.

So, to explore this, before you became whichever flavour of Christianity you are (apologies, I don't know, not Catholic though!), did you believe in god? Did your examination of the case for Christianity instill both belief in god and confidence in Christianity?

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

I don't agree that faith was intrinsic to my character. Rather simply I was convinced by examining the case for Christianity, the relevant eyewitness accounts and the evidence we have in their favour that Christianity was true. As a result I can trust in the Gospel. Nothing to do with my prior character.

Whereas I, would find the atheist counter argument more convincing. Well the reasonable argument if not the CT version. Lets face it, what a believer believes is unbelievable (if it weren't true )

Northclare

doctoremma wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

I have no interest in certain subjects,and I can detach myself emotionally and intellectually from those subjects.

Why can't Atheists get help for their resentment twoards Religion,God etc

That mental obsession must be hard to live with.

As has been pointed out to you many times, atheists care about religion because it affects their lives and, sometimes, their freedoms. If you're questioning why, say, a gay person might tend to be a little antagonistic towards conservative religions or believers, then you need to wake up.

It's very easy to be apathetic if something doesn't affect you in any way.

Well maybe they should be getting professional help for their negative obsessions.

After all your a Doctor, well.....

As for me needing to wake up

Not all of us think we can see with our lids over our eyes

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

Well maybe they should be getting professional help for their negative obsessions

I'm not sure this is the right thread for this conversation.

You appear to be saying that the gay person arguing against religious objections to equality in civil marriage law needs to go to a therapist? That it is somehow his/her fault? That THEY are the ones with the problem?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

So, to explore this, before you became whichever flavour of Christianity you are (apologies, I don't know, not Catholic though!), did you believe in god? Did your examination of the case for Christianity instill both belief in god and confidence in Christianity?

I didn't know whether God existed or not and it certainly wasn't at the forefront of my life as it is now. In short I was an agnostic.

Northclare

doctoremma wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Well maybe they should be getting professional help for their negative obsessions

I'm not sure this is the right thread for this conversation.

You appear to be saying that the gay person arguing against religious objections to equality in civil marriage law needs to go to a therapist? That it is somehow his/her fault? That THEY are the ones with the problem?

Emma Emma Emma can you read ?

Now your able to Read my mind,or think you can read my mind.

What I mean is if a person has a negative obsession with a person place or thing,they should get professional help.

It's not good to be suffering from a mental obsession,whether it's with an establishment,person or thing,it's best one gets help.

I'm not saying it's his or her fault,you seem to be thinking you can do my thinking for me :S

Are you really a Doctor ?

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

Emma Emma Emma can you read ? Are you really a Doctor ?

Yes. Yes. Relevance?

Northclare wrote: »

What I mean is if a person has a negative obsession with a person place or thing,they should get professional help.

It's not good to be suffering from a mental obsession,whether it's with an establishment,person or thing,it's best one gets help.

Let's say a gay person wishes to be married in civil law and finds it to be illegal and with strong objections from religious groups. They then pursue their cause by joining a pressure group or ranting on an internet forum about religion preventing equality in civil matters. They get a little (or a lot) annoyed at any religious person who expresses their view that said gay person should not be married, even under civil law. They spend time and effort, sometimes polite, sometimes not, trying to argue their point.

That gay person needs help? It is incumbent on that gay person to address his/her negative and obsessive behaviour even when s/he is fighting for a civil right? Can you just answer "yes" or "no", for the sake of clarity?

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

I didn't know whether God existed or not and it certainly wasn't at the forefront of my life as it is now. In short I was an agnostic.

OK. Do you feel that scripture induced belief or that belief was required to process scripture?

And you say you were agnostic. Was this a central part of your character? What was your belief about god? Was this a central part of your character?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

OK. Do you feel that scripture induced belief or that belief was required to process scripture?

And you say you were agnostic. Was this a central part of your character? What was your belief about god? Was this a central part of your character?

No it wasn't a central part of my character. It was just the way I was in respect to belief. I didn't know whether God existed and it didn't preoccupy much of my thought.

Belief comes through looking to the claims and assessing them and the respective evidence for onesself.

Onesimus

philologos wrote: »

No it wasn't a central part of my character. It was just the way I was in respect to belief. I didn't know whether God existed and it didn't preoccupy much of my thought.

Belief comes through looking to the claims and assessing them and the respective evidence for onesself.

Wrong! Belief is a Grace of God. I've yet to meet a five year old with faith in Jesus who assesses intellectually all the evidence. And Jesus calls us to become like little children. To have a blind and naive faith. But faith is a grace of God, man cannot reach belief in God by his own power.

Northclare

doctoremma wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Emma Emma Emma can you read ? Are you really a Doctor ?

Yes. Yes. Relevance?

Northclare wrote: »

What I mean is if a person has a negative obsession with a person place or thing,they should get professional help.

It's not good to be suffering from a mental obsession,whether it's with an establishment,person or thing,it's best one gets help.

Let's say a gay person wishes to be married in civil law and finds it to be illegal and with strong objections from religious groups. They then pursue their cause by joining a pressure group or ranting on an internet forum about religion preventing equality in civil matters. They get a little (or a lot) annoyed at any religious person who expresses their view that said gay person should not be married, even under civil law. They spend time and effort, sometimes polite, sometimes not, trying to argue their point.

That gay person needs help? It is incumbent on that gay person to address his/her negative and obsessive behaviour even when s/he is fighting for a civil right? Can you just answer "yes" or "no", for the sake of clarity?

No it's not the gay person who needs help,it's the person who needs help.

I don't believe in labelling people on their sexual orientation.

I just believe were all human.

I don't like when the Gays are brought into discussions,they are no different to straight people the feelings are just the same.

Emma I'm surprised with you bringing the Gays into this.

doctoremma

I'll ask again. Is a gay person who raises objections to religious interference in civil marriage law indulging in a negative obsession? Is it incumbent on that person to seek therapy for their unhealthy attitude to religion?

Oh wait, you answered....

Northclare wrote: »

No it's not the gay person who needs help,it's the person who needs help.

Nice. A person (who is gay) needs therapy when they challenge a religion which seeks to prevent them having equal status in a civil context.

What happens if we expand your example? It's all very well to say "Chill, let's all get on, why so negative?" when you are not oppressed in some fashion. One wonders what might have happened if black slaves had been told to seek help for their unhealthy and negative obsession with white men.

Northclare wrote: »

I don't believe in labelling people on their sexual orientation.

Except you do, given the liberal use of the phrase "the Gays" in your answer, completely inconsistent with your position of "not labelling people based on sexual orientation". You have, in fact, labelled a group of people based ENTIRELY on sexual orientation, and given that group of people a proper noun to boot. I'm sure you can find irony here.

Northclare wrote: »

I don't like when the Gays are brought into discussions,they are no different to straight people the feelings are just the same....Emma I'm surprised with you bringing the Gays into this.

I cannot keep up with your randomness....

Note: This thread is looking like it is about to derail. Shall we continue elsewhere?

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

Wrong! Belief is a Grace of God. I've yet to meet a five year old with faith in Jesus who assesses intellectually all the evidence. And Jesus calls us to become like little children. To have a blind and naive faith. But faith is a grace of God, man cannot reach belief in God by his own power.

Faith isn't blind, particularly if we look to the examples we see in Hebrews 11.

By the by it is only by the grace of God that we are saved, and it is only by God's power that I can stand before Him righteous, but faith comes by hearing and examining the word of God and the testimony and evidence we've received even if that is a God prompted process.

You shouldn't jump to unwarranted conclusions about my posts or my experience.

doctoremma - don't we have a megathread for that?

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

doctoremma - don't we have a megathread for that?

Which megathread? None of my posts addressing NC are directly to do with gay people in religion - nor - the existence of god. The example I used was to outline a scenario where someone might justifiably have a "negative obsession" with religion. While NC's randomness doesn't surprise me, I'd be surprised if YOU don't see the example for what it is.

Anyway, you don't get to tell me off when I have already suggested taking it elsewhere.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

but faith comes by hearing and examining the word of God and the testimony and evidence we've received even if that is a God prompted process.

So, do you think faith is a choice?

If so, isn't it perfectly reasonable to talk about faith as a "lifestyle choice"?

Doctor DooM

Onesimus wrote: »

Wrong! Belief is a Grace of God. I've yet to meet a five year old with faith in Jesus who assesses intellectually all the evidence. And Jesus calls us to become like little children. To have a blind and naive faith. But faith is a grace of God, man cannot reach belief in God by his own power.

Children have faith in God when they're taught to by people who they have no reason to believe are lying to them, then they make their own decision when they're old enough to, surely.

lmaopml

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Children have faith in God when they're taught to by people who they have no reason to believe are lying to them, then they make their own decision when they're old enough to, surely.

I think Doctor that you must admit that there are some 'children' who come to belief all on their own despite their parents lack of belief. They sometimes are heroic in their individual ways, and demonstrate how a child is an individual...

Indeed there are some who decide that they don't believe despite their parents, and you might regard them as heroes...or people that awaken from some 'notion' that there is a 'Good God'.


Information and thought and being self sufficient or an individual is not only the gift of the Atheist Parent - it sometimes can be the resignation that a child grows up and chooses no matter whom their parents are that they will be themselves. If a Parent can do that, and give at least a little good, and give a child a sense of purpose, respect for others, and a will to keep learning with a little humility that there is much to learn, and a high horizon beyond their parents, then we're doing the best we can.

newmug

This thread is gone waaaaaaaaaaayyyyy off track.


To answer your question OP, yes. Yes, I have come across attitudes like you have described. Especially in the last 20 years. During the 80's, it seemed like there was nothing unusual about talking about God or religion. Its a cultural shift, one I, personally, am sorry to see.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

I think Doctor that you must admit that there are some 'children' who come to belief all on their own despite their parents lack of belief. They sometimes are heroic in their individual ways, and demonstrate how a child is an individual...

Indeed there are some who decide that they don't believe despite their parents, and you might regard them as heroes...or people that awaken from some 'notion' that there is a 'Good God'.


Information and thought and being self sufficient or an individual is not only the gift of the Atheist Parent - it sometimes can be the resignation that a child grows up and chooses no matter whom their parents are that they will be themselves. If a Parent can do that, and give at least a little good, and give a child a sense of purpose, respect for others, and a will to keep learning with a little humility that there is much to learn, and a high horizon beyond their parents, then we're doing the best we can.

lmaopml-How many do you think would ''come to believe all on their own'' if they were left to their own devices and not taught from the earliest age ?

marienbad

newmug wrote: »

This thread is gone waaaaaaaaaaayyyyy off track.


To answer your question OP, yes. Yes, I have come across attitudes like you have described. Especially in the last 20 years. During the 80's, it seemed like there was nothing unusual about talking about God or religion. Its a cultural shift, one I, personally, am sorry to see.

I don't think there was that much talking about God and religion in the 80's - a lot of lecturing maybe but very little talking. And the subsequent fall from grace and collapse of leadership has shown how shallow that faith really was . I would exempt ''born again '' christiand from that.

Just my opinion.

Doctor DooM

lmaopml wrote: »

I think Doctor that you must admit that there are some 'children' who come to belief all on their own despite their parents lack of belief. They sometimes are heroic in their individual ways, and demonstrate how a child is an individual...

Indeed there are some who decide that they don't believe despite their parents, and you might regard them as heroes...or people that awaken from some 'notion' that there is a 'Good God'.


Information and thought and being self sufficient or an individual is not only the gift of the Atheist Parent - it sometimes can be the resignation that a child grows up and chooses no matter whom their parents are that they will be themselves. If a Parent can do that, and give at least a little good, and give a child a sense of purpose, respect for others, and a will to keep learning with a little humility that there is much to learn, and a high horizon beyond their parents, then we're doing the best we can.

I don't really think I do have to admit that to be honest. If a child was never taught of god's existence, I don't see how they'd believe in him.

There's always a charismatic authority figure involved when I have encountered this happening, if not a parent. Bear in mind you mention parents, not me. I meant teachers and the like too.

newmug

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think there was that much talking about God and religion in the 80's - a lot of lecturing maybe but very little talking. And the subsequent fall from grace and collapse of leadership has shown how shallow that faith really was . I would exempt ''born again '' christiand from that.

Just my opinion.

Ah come on, there was a completely different vibe about religion altogether. The Pope came here in '79, there were numerous late-late shows about various aspects of religion, the whole moving statues thing, Medjugorie etc. Religion just seemed to be a commonplace part of people's lives, more to the forefront than now, akin to what rugby and pop idol mean to people nowadays. You could just have a casual chat with anybody about the Holy Spirit or The Last Supper the way you would ask someone did they see Donegal v Mayo the other week. There was no way you'd get the response "Oh I'm just not into that".

The fall from grace you speak of? The evil acts comitted by a miniscule proportion of the membership, and the subsequent disowning of Jesus's teachings by thousands of flaky fickle hypocrits you mean? Thats who the real shallow ones were. Strange how people didnt react in a similar way to sport and politics when Justin Fashanu and David Norris were exposed.

Doctor DooM

newmug wrote: »

Ah come on, there was a completely different vibe about religion altogether. The Pope came here in '79, there were numerous late-late shows about various aspects of religion, the whole moving statues thing, Medjugorie etc. Religion just seemed to be a commonplace part of people's lives, more to the forefront than now, akin to what rugby and pop idol mean to people nowadays. You could just have a casual chat with anybody about the Holy Spirit or The Last Supper the way you would ask someone did they see Donegal v Mayo the other week. There was no way you'd get the response "Oh I'm just not into that".

The fall from grace you speak of? The evil acts comitted by a miniscule proportion of the membership, and the subsequent disowning of Jesus's teachings by thousands of flaky fickle hypocrits you mean? Thats who the real shallow ones were. Strange how people didnt react in a similar way to sport and politics when Justin Fashanu and David Norris were exposed.

I don't know where you grew up, but my parents certainly would never have talked like that.

Also, yes, the real problem is that people in the heirarchy abused people and others allowed to happen. Shame on you for trying to deflect that.

Gumbi

Doctor DooM wrote: »

lmaopml wrote: »

I think Doctor that you must admit that there are some 'children' who come to belief all on their own despite their parents lack of belief. They sometimes are heroic in their individual ways, and demonstrate how a child is an individual...

Indeed there are some who decide that they don't believe despite their parents, and you might regard them as heroes...or people that awaken from some 'notion' that there is a 'Good God'.


Information and thought and being self sufficient or an individual is not only the gift of the Atheist Parent - it sometimes can be the resignation that a child grows up and chooses no matter whom their parents are that they will be themselves. If a Parent can do that, and give at least a little good, and give a child a sense of purpose, respect for others, and a will to keep learning with a little humility that there is much to learn, and a high horizon beyond their parents, then we're doing the best we can.

I don't really think I do have to admit that to be honest. If a child was never taught of god's existence, I don't see how they'd believe in him.

There's always a charismatic authority figure involved when I have encountered this happening, if not a parent. Bear in mind you mention parents, not me. I meant teachers and the like too.

For the most part I'd agree, though I think it's reasonable to concede that SOME (no italics on iPhone ) will come to a conclusion that God exists. I think a minority, though a some number all the same.

marienbad

newmug wrote: »

Ah come on, there was a completely different vibe about religion altogether. The Pope came here in '79, there were numerous late-late shows about various aspects of religion, the whole moving statues thing, Medjugorie etc. Religion just seemed to be a commonplace part of people's lives, more to the forefront than now, akin to what rugby and pop idol mean to people nowadays. You could just have a casual chat with anybody about the Holy Spirit or The Last Supper the way you would ask someone did they see Donegal v Mayo the other week. There was no way you'd get the response "Oh I'm just not into that".

The fall from grace you speak of? The evil acts comitted by a miniscule proportion of the membership, and the subsequent disowning of Jesus's teachings by thousands of flaky fickle hypocrits you mean? Thats who the real shallow ones were. Strange how people didnt react in a similar way to sport and politics when Justin Fashanu and David Norris were exposed.

Are you joking !! I have never ever heard witnessed such a conversation as you describe and I grew up in one of the heartlands of catholicism in Ireland. You may well have had conversation about events and the usual stuff of '' is'nt the new priest a lovely man'' but never about the substance of belief.

And why because it was a top down religion. As in the top did the thinking and telling and the down did as they were told . And when the top fell the followers were shown just to be what we now call cultural catholics.

And if they were ''fickle flaky hypocrits'' as you describe them - why was that do you think ? How they were taught perhaps ? Or the example given to them by a hierarchy hypocritical to the core ?

On a sidenote why does everything everytime in these conversations have to come down to homosexuality ? At least ''the love that dares to speak its name '' is legal and adult , unlike ''the friendship that went to far'' prevalent in some quarters.

Benny_Cake

Just to warn people - any discussion regarding a) homosexuality or b) the clerical abuse scandals should be taken to the relevant megathreads. Thanks!

Benny_Cake

Growing up in Ireland of the 1980s, I don't recall all that much discussion among most adults regarding theology or matters of faith. People seemed content to treat faith as a personal matter and left the deeper discussion or expounding of (Catholic) faith to the clergy. I think that this was unfortunate, as most lay people were content to take a back seat and not get involved in ministry. This was hardly surprising as for decades, Ireland had a huge number of priests, well above the international average. That fact in itself may account for the idea that a person with a particular interest in religion or who speaks about their faith should be a candidate for the priesthood - nearly every Catholic had one or more relatives in religious life. So it may be a feature of Irish Catholicism rather than as a result of secularism.

From what I remember of the 1980s, one difference was that nearly every panel discussion on RTE seemed to have a clergyman, regardless of the subject! Not that I was too interested, Transformers was more to my liking back then.

lmaopml

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I don't really think I do have to admit that to be honest. If a child was never taught of god's existence, I don't see how they'd believe in him.

There's always a charismatic authority figure involved when I have encountered this happening, if not a parent. Bear in mind you mention parents, not me. I meant teachers and the like too.

I don't know how you can't admit it, when it's a fact of life that people are individuals, that's what we preach and teach. There are people who demonstrate freedom of mind despite their parents are there not?

People have for generations reached out, sometimes they grasp onto other people, sometimes they see Christ with clear eyes.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

lmaopml-How many do you think would ''come to believe all on their own'' if they were left to their own devices and not taught from the earliest age ?

Marien, God revealed himself for a reason, the reason being that we use our reason too - it's okay to do that and decide our path.

The truth of Christianity is that we aren't 'all on our own', and never were despite crap things that happen...that's somebody else's message that we are mere products and producing endlessly... and it has nothing got to do with Christianity.

Christ is a stumbling block for many, he poses a question as to what is and is not valuable, what is and is not good, what is and is not a human being.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Marien, God revealed himself for a reason, the reason being that we use our reason too - it's okay to do that and decide our path.

The truth of Christianity is that we aren't 'all on our own', and never were despite crap things that happen...that's somebody else's message that we are mere products and producing endlessly... and it has nothing got to do with Christianity.

Christ is a stumbling block for many, he poses a question as to what is and is not valuable, what is and is not good, what is and is not a human being.

That may well be the case lmaopml, i really would'nt know , but it is not what I asked you. I asked how many do you think would come to believe if they were left to decide for themselves and not indoctrinated from the earliest age ?

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

That may well be the case lmaopml, i really would'nt know , but it is not what I asked you. I asked how many do you think would come to believe if they were left to decide for themselves and not indoctrinated from the earliest age ?

I think man from the earliest of ages has always realised how 'different' they were as opposed to how the 'same' we are to our fellow creatures. How many expressions of this can be counted?

The most amazing thing is not our sameness with the creatures, but how remarkable and unfathomable ( despite evolutionary psychology..pml ) we are, what happened to make us so very different, to make us observers, and also custodians is most remarkable..enter Christianity.


Hence, we reach for the stars and still do Marien We don't need Atheist or Christian brains to do so, since there is no vast difference between both except for what we value about humans and about what our exploration makes us - it makes some see themselves as very little, but with a big message to the world, and it makes some see themselves as very tall, with equally a message to the world.

It's the message that counts.

totus tuus

marienbad wrote: »

That may well be the case lmaopml, i really would'nt know , but it is not what I asked you. I asked how many do you think would come to believe if they were left to decide for themselves and not indoctrinated from the earliest age ?

Many adults who were never exposed to religion during childhood come to believe through various other means, such as spouses etc. That happened with my own mother, who was baptised in the protestant church in the UK - her family weren't religious whatsoever. She fell in love and married my dad who was an Irish Catholic, eventually she was converted and today is a devout 73 year old Catholic! God has His ways!

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

I think man from the earliest of ages has always realised how 'different' they were as opposed to how the 'same' we are to our fellow creatures. How many expressions of this can be counted?

The most amazing thing is not our sameness with the creatures, but how remarkable and unfathomable ( despite evolutionary psychology..pml ) we are, what happened to make us so very different, to make us observers, and also custodians is most remarkable..enter Christianity.


Hence, we reach for the stars and still do Marien We don't need Atheist or Christian brains to do so, since there is no vast difference between both except for what we value about humans and about what our exploration makes us - it makes some see themselves as very little, but with a big message to the world, and it makes some see themselves as very tall, with equally a message to the world.

It's the message that counts.

Again all very interesting , but is completely irrelevant to my question - which I will repeat - how many do you think would come to believe if they were left to decide for themselves and not indoctrinated from an early age ?

newmug

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I don't know where you grew up, but my parents certainly would never have talked like that.

Also, yes, the real problem is that people in the heirarchy abused people and others allowed to happen. Shame on you for trying to deflect that.

marienbad wrote: »

Are you joking !! I have never ever heard witnessed such a conversation as you describe and I grew up in one of the heartlands of catholicism in Ireland.

No I'm not joking. I grew up in county Meath, Ireland. Catholic life was so ingrained in culture back then that they even made a sitcom about it, depicting funny situations TYPICAL of Irish life at the time. You may have heard of it, its called Father Ted.

marienbad wrote: »

And why because it was a top down religion. As in the top did the thinking and telling and the down did as they were told . And when the top fell the followers were shown just to be what we now call cultural catholics...........

And if they were ''fickle flaky hypocrits'' as you describe them - why was that do you think ? How they were taught perhaps ? Or the example given to them by a hierarchy hypocritical to the core ?

No it wasnt, and still isnt. Did you not have weeks of parent teacher meetings, preparations, rehearsals, and religion classes in the run up to your First Holy Communion? Same with your Confirmation? I'm proud to be part of a religion that is so inclusive. Everybody gets to play some part, if they wish.

The "top", as you're calling it, never "fell". Some paedophiles used a job to gain peoples trust. Wow!!!!!:rolleyes: Burgalars go around tarring drives and washing windows to case out houses, car thieves often work as mechanics, child rapists go for politics, religious ministry, teaching etc for the same reason - Cover. A handful entered the ranks of the worlds 1.5 BILLION Catholics, and now you use that as an excuse to stay in bed an hour longer on a Sunday morning, and tar all those of us who choose not to with the same brush?

I have nothing to be ashamed of. I am martyring myself for Jesus. Cultural Catholics indeed! Hypocrits.

marienbad wrote: »

On a sidenote why does everything everytime in these conversations have to come down to homosexuality ? At least ''the love that dares to speak its name '' is legal and adult , unlike ''the friendship that went to far'' prevalent in some quarters.

Its yourself and Doctoremma who keep dragging up gayness and paedophilia.

marienbad wrote: »

Again all very interesting , but is completely irrelevant to my question - which I will repeat - how many do you think would come to believe if they were left to decide for themselves and not indoctrinated from an early age ?

The vast majority in my experience. This whole "athiest" trend lately is just a new name for the "cultural catholics / hyporcrits" mentioned above. Up until recently, nearly everybody aligned themselves to Catholicism, even if they didnt regularly attend. The vast majority of protestants I know converted too. They saw the light.

As my granny used to say, "You're standing in your own light, like a protestant minister".

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

The vast majority in my experience. This whole "athiest" trend lately is just a new name for the "cultural catholics / hyporcrits" mentioned above. Up until recently, nearly everybody aligned themselves to Catholicism, even if they didnt regularly attend. The vast majority of protestants I know converted too. They saw the light.

As my granny used to say, "You're standing in your own light, like a protestant minister".

Newmug - this is skirting very close to sectarian trolling. If you want to discuss the merits of Catholicism as opposed to Protestantism, we have a megathread for that.

newmug

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Newmug - this is skirting very close to sectarian trolling. If you want to discuss the merits of Catholicism as opposed to Protestantism, we have a megathread for that.

Apologies if it comes across that way. I'm just answering the question and stating the facts. Of all the protestants who live around me, the vast majority are now Catholic. There are quite a few big landowners around here, with big families. In general, the older generation are still protestant, but the people from about 60 years of age down are Catholic. There is no sectarianism about it, everybody lives is harmony and nobody thinks twice about it.

marienbad

newmug wrote: »

No I'm not joking. I grew up in county Meath, Ireland. Catholic life was so ingrained in culture back then that they even made a sitcom about it, depicting funny situations TYPICAL of Irish life at the time. You may have heard of it, its called Father Ted.





No it wasnt, and still isnt. Did you not have weeks of parent teacher meetings, preparations, rehearsals, and religion classes in the run up to your First Holy Communion? Same with your Confirmation? I'm proud to be part of a religion that is so inclusive. Everybody gets to play some part, if they wish.

The "top", as you're calling it, never "fell". Some paedophiles used a job to gain peoples trust. Wow!!!!!:rolleyes: Burgalars go around tarring drives and washing windows to case out houses, car thieves often work as mechanics, child rapists go for politics, religious ministry, teaching etc for the same reason - Cover. A handful entered the ranks of the worlds 1.5 BILLION Catholics, and now you use that as an excuse to stay in bed an hour longer on a Sunday morning, and tar all those of us who choose not to with the same brush?

I have nothing to be ashamed of. I am martyring myself for Jesus. Cultural Catholics indeed! Hypocrits.





Its yourself and Doctoremma who keep dragging up gayness and paedophilia.





The vast majority in my experience. This whole "athiest" trend lately is just a new name for the "cultural catholics / hyporcrits" mentioned above. Up until recently, nearly everybody aligned themselves to Catholicism, even if they didnt regularly attend. The vast majority of protestants I know converted too. They saw the light.

As my granny used to say, "You're standing in your own light, like a protestant minister".

Ah Newmug surely you can do better than that - Father Ted ! Is that the series that was offered to RTE and refused and was made by Channel 4 ? Only after we watched it on a foreign channel in droves was it brought to RTE.

As for the rest of your reply , it is not answering my question . Even the use of protestant conversions to catholicism to bolster your point could be considering a bit crass, as it was a condition of marrying the person they loved was it not ? A case of they saw the light or else maybe ?

So I repeat my question- how many do you think would come to believe if they were left to decide for themselves and not indoctrinated from an early age ? And now that you have raised it how many of those protestants would have been happy to remain so if it was not a condition of marriage.


Again on a side/sidenote -I did not raise the issue of homesexuality - you did ! I just queried why it has to muddy every thread of this type.