Having to go to church: Should I stand?

Sycopat

Atari Jaguar

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Are you not disrespecting the Church and/or believers by just 'playing along with the routine'?

As someone who also goes along with it all, maybe I am.

But if I am it doesn't bother me.

I mostly do it because if I'm in a church it's for a family/friend reason. A situation in which I don't want to upset anyone, or add to anyones pain, so I'll go through what are to me meaningless gestures (Including the tasty bread. It's sacri-licious!) to keep peace.

The kind of people who would find that insulting to their beliefs are also the kind of people my going through the motions approach allows me to easily manipulate into thinking I'm a 'fine young man' or a 'good lad', so really it's win-win for me.

I stand, but don't kneel.

I tend to remain seated, but it depends on the scenario. If it's a remembrance mass, say, I'll find a seat near the back of the church and keep to myself. I attempt to focus all of my thoughts for the duration of the mass on the person whom I'm there to remember; I find this to be more worthwhile than standing, sitting and kneeling like an automaton, and the act of devoting my mind to remembering the person is, to me, infinitely more valuable than dishonestly going along with a charade I hold no value in. If it were me that was dead, I'd value the person reminiscing over times past more than the one who's only involving himself in the charade for fear some other person will think less of him — if a person's only reason for sitting, standing and kneeling is to avoid embarrassment then I'd rather they not be there. If the mass is for a wedding, funeral, or other ceremony, I'll sometimes stand, but not kneel, depending on my mood — a sombre event and I'll tend to stay seated; a joyous event and I'll often participate in the charade.

magicbastarder

Zillah wrote: »

The Church basically blackmails you into submitting to its authority and prominence by kidnapping essential rituals. In the example in the OP: You have a choice of A) Going to the mass and doing all the stuff (despite your opposition to the Church), Going to the mass and not doing the stuff (offending people) or C) Not going to the mass (offending people). So you can bow and scrape to a priest or you can offend your family and friends. It's a vicious little arrangement they have for themselves. Respect for the dead becomes respect for the Church. Celebration of a marriage becomes celebration of the Church. Celebration of a birth becomes celebration of the Church.

****. Unfortunately the best choice is to toe the line and do the minimum amount of bowing and scraping necessary, which flies in the face of some strongly held principles but what can I do? That's the nature of blackmail, someone forces you to do something that you are deeply opposed to.

the church has co-opted these rituals to the extent that the people they are being celebrated for (since we seem to be talking mainly about hatches, matches and dispatches) have *chosen* this form of ceremony. respect for the church is a distant second to respect for the person for whom you are there.

Kiwi in IE

I stand, but don't kneel.

I am a community nurse. Sometimes when on duty clients who are unable to go independently want to attend. Have no problem going, I am there to attend to their needs and my personal beliefs are irrelevant. However I will NOT stand, kneel, genuflect, pray, sing or do anything else. I sit there are think about my shopping list while they participate.

ShooterSF

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Sycopat wrote: »

The kind of people who would find that insulting to their beliefs are also the kind of people my going through the motions approach allows me to easily manipulate into thinking I'm a 'fine young man' or a 'good lad', so really it's win-win for me.

Not that I'd go out of my way to annoy them but I couldn't care less if people like that think good or bad of me.

Berlin at night

I do the whole shebang... standing, kneeling, praying, communion etc...

When in Rome etc. I'm pure athiest, I despise religion, but I'd always copy their rituals in their church out of respect.

Hotblack Desiato

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Some people would regard taking part in rituals you don't believe in as disrespectful in itself. Especially if you went as far as taking communion just to 'fit in'.
We stand up for many things, anthems, presidents, judges, the scoring of a goal :pac: it's not inherently religious
Kneeling down is submissive no doubt about it. I still attend church funerals but I have increasing discomfort in doing so. The last one I was at was the funeral of a close relative about a year ago, I found the church ceremony pretty hard going but the ceremony at the crematorium was fine. (Incidentally I was a little surprised at the choice of cremation for an octogenarian Catholic, it's not that long since the RCC frowned upon it so I was expecting a traditional burial)

I have to say I'm finding the idea of going inside a church for a funeral increasingly difficult in the last couple of years given the ongoing scandal they still won't address. I'd much rather never enter a Roman Catholic church again in my life (or death!)

If I was invited to a church wedding I'd just go to the reception or not go at all.

I wouldn't attend a christening at all as I consider infant baptism to be wrong.

robindch

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Berlin at night wrote: »

When in Rome etc [...] I'd always copy their rituals in their church out of respect.

As ninja says, there are religious people out there (I knew a few) who believe that atheists shouldn't be at religious services to start with, and if they are let in the door, that they should confine themselves to standing up and sitting down only.

MagicMarker

I'd stand, but I don't think I'd care what others do.

I'd also go up for communion, I love communion so much I'd go back for seconds.

Hotblack Desiato

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

!?! Have they changed the flavour in the last 25 years? I'm not going to find out

It always used to feel like eating a piece of paper with a taste and texture only just not bad enough to induce nausea (imho)

Obliq

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

I like rice paper, mmm! Are the communion wafers the same as that? I heard they were....

seamus

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

ninja900 wrote: »

!?! Have they changed the flavour in the last 25 years? I'm not going to find out

They have introduced a gluten-free host in some churches.

Because clearly they've recognised that believing in transubstantiation isn't enough to make it a reality.

Another piece of hilarity from the ministry of silliness.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

They have introduced a gluten-free host in some churches.

Because clearly they've recognised that believing in transubstantiation isn't enough to make it a reality.

Another piece of hilarity from the ministry of silliness.

Introducing gluten-free wafers is hilarious and silly?

That seems rather callous of you!

Wiggles88

Peregrinus wrote: »

Introducing gluten-free wafers is hilarious and silly?

That seems rather callous of you!

Does transubstantiation not say that the wafer is literally transformed into the body of christ? Therefore if one was to actually believe this then it wouldn't matter what the original wafer was made of as after the priest said the magic words it would be christs body.

By introducing gluten free wafers they are admitting that this does not happen and that transubstantiation is a load of crap.

seamus

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Introducing gluten-free wafers is hilarious and silly?

That seems rather callous of you!

My wife and my mother both have gluten intolerances, so believe me when I say that I'm impressed at their consideration and forward-thinkingness, especially since it comes at the cost of admitting that one of the core aspects of the mass is complete and utter horse****.

That's why it's hilarious. Cognitive dissonance - "This is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Now gluten-free."

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

My wife and my mother both have gluten intolerances, so believe me when I say that I'm impressed at their consideration and forward-thinkingness, especially since it comes at the cost of admitting that one of the core aspects of the mass is complete and utter horse****.

That's why it's hilarious. Cognitive dissonance - "This is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Now gluten-free."

I don't think you've quite grasped Catholic beliefs about transubstantiation!

seamus

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

The Catholic church believes that the host is the actual body of Jesus Christ, just retaining the taste and form of the bread.

It would seem to me that if they truly believed this, they would not accept that it could make a person ill. It's a implicit acceptance that nothing has changed after the host is consecrated.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

The Catholic church believes that the host is the actual body of Jesus Christ, just retaining the taste and form of the bread.

It would seem to me that if they truly believed this, they would not accept that it could make a person ill. It's a implicit acceptance that nothing has changed after the host is consecrated.

Does the fact that they do accept it not suggest to you that your initial premise might have been wrong, and that they do not in fact believe what you assert they believe?

And, indeed, they do not. Catholic teaching on transubstantiation is that consecrated hosts retain all their physical, chemical, material properties - not just taste and form (which are our perceptions) but everything, right down to atomic and subatomic structures. There is no material change of any kind.

Beliefs should be evidence-based, and that includes your beliefs about what the Catholic church teaches. When you found belief your contradicted by the evidence, it was credulous of you to dismiss the evidence as "hilarious" and "silly"; you should have re-examined your own belief.

seamus

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Does the fact that they do accept it not suggest to you that your initial premise might have been wrong, and that they do not in fact believe what you assert they believe?

Yes, and I examined that and found I wasn't wrong.

And, indeed, they do not. Catholic teaching on transubstantiation is that consecrated hosts retain all their physical, chemical, material properties - not just taste and form (which are our perceptions) but everything, right down to atomic and subatomic structures. There is no material change of any kind.

So it doesn't change. Cognitive dissonance - "We believe it changes, while accepting that it in fact does not".

You can't claim that something doesn't change materially, but it does change. There is nothing else.

No matter how much I tell myself in my head that a piece of poo is a delicious cheesecake, it in fact will remain as poo. And that's basically what a gluten-free host exposes - the knowledge that the "bread" undergoes no change while trying to pretend that it does.

Hilarious and silly, like I say.

Dades

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, indeed, they do not. Catholic teaching on transubstantiation is that consecrated hosts retain all their physical, chemical, material properties - not just taste and form (which are our perceptions) but everything, right down to atomic and subatomic structures. There is no material change of any kind.

Are you saying that the church claims this act is purely symbolic? That they invented the term transubstantiation to describe a process that does absolutely nothing?

If not - what exactly is the change that happens?

nozzferrahhtoo

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Dades wrote: »

Are you saying that the church claims this act is purely symbolic? That they invested the term transubstantiation to describe a process that does absolutely nothing?

If not - what exactly is the change that happens?

There seems to be three main things any one catholic you meet is likely to believe.

1) There is actual physical change.
2) There is a spiritual metaphysical change entirely undetectable to us but no less real for that.
3) There is no change on any level and the ceremony is purely symbolic.

While there is variety in what any one catholic might claim to believe it seems that the claims of the church itself fall into category 2. I performed a series of experiments on the crackers myself which were solely directed at group 1.

There is very little to be done or said about group 2 though. What can you say to someone who is essentially saying "This has not changed in any way... but it has changed.... hallelujah and praise the lord". Claiming there has been a change but defining that change to be one that is conveniently undetectable on any level is no more impressive than me pulling an invisible rabbit out of a hat and saying that I did so despite the fact that the rabbit is entirely undetectable by you in any way.

No child over the age of 6 would likely fall for that canard and would realize I simply did not pull a rabbit out at all. Yet grown adults fall for what is, at the base of it, essentially the same joke.

kylith

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

So what you're all saying.... is that Jesus was made of wafer?

pH

Dades wrote: »

Are you saying that the church claims this act is purely symbolic? That they invested the term transubstantiation to describe a process that does absolutely nothing?

If not - what exactly is the change that happens?

Hell no - the "symbolic" act is what the protestants believe - something which is an anathema to catholic belief - Catholics believe it actually changes, but really doesn't! Symbolic .. peh!

magicbastarder

ninja900 wrote: »

If I was invited to a church wedding I'd just go to the reception or not go at all.

that'd be the height of ignorance. the reception is for the people who attended the wedding. you either go to the church, or don't go at all.

if you receive a wedding invite, please do not contact the couple to let them know you'll just be attending the reception. it'd be rude and you'd be placing them in an awkward position. just say you can't go.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

You can't claim that something doesn't change materially, but it does change. There is nothing else.

Certainly you can claim that. The claim that only the material is real is unproven and unevidenced.

lazygal

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

kylith wrote: »

So what you're all saying.... is that Jesus was made of wafer?

No, no, no. Jesus was a gluten free miracle. So everyone could enjoy his tasty, tasty flesh.

looksee

I do the whole shebang... standing, kneeling, praying, communion etc...

Do they do vegan wafers too?

Sarky

kylith wrote: »

So what you're all saying.... is that Jesus was made of wafer?

Yup. It is a model laced with gaps. We scoop the ice cream of atheism into those gaps to make sense of it all.

lazygal

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

looksee wrote: »

Do they do vegan wafers too?

Now that's just crazy talk.

Dades

I stand and kneel along with everyone else.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Certainly you can claim that. The claim that only the material is real is unproven and unevidenced.

Certainly if one claims that a small food item, say, a sprout, has *changed* despite being materially identical and indistinguishable from it's previous state - people will rightly say "this is utter, utter nonsense - what kind of an idiot do you take me for?"

Except of course when that food item is in a church, and a guy in a robe chants over it.

Does all food have a supernatural state waiting to be changed, I wonder, or does the bread suddenly gain a new state outside of the material/real?