Communions/confirmations, utter farce?

Penn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Soon to be 7 year old Hermoine (the granddaughter) is in the same position - she can't understand why she is too young to not believe there is a god but is old enough make her communion next year. She is rapidly running out of patience with the people who tell her she will understand when she is older but refuse to tell her why, in that case, she is not making her communion when she is older.
Asked if she wouldn't like to wear a beautiful dress she replied she has a beautiful dress and is planning on wearing it for her birthday and frankly doesn't believe there could possibly be a more beautiful dress than the one she already has...she would like some new shoes.
Asked if she wouldn't like to get loads of money she replied she would like 20 euro to take herself and her brother to Monkey Maze twice but she gets that from her great auntie every birthday anyway...

Parenting: Your child is doing it right.

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

Sarky and me in the one sentence. I think I want die now.

Obliq

Aww Sark....Jer didn't mean you to have a sad face. Galve?- come play with your friends. Everyone will be happy then, eh?

Obliq

Penn wrote: »

Parenting: Your child is doing it right.

Love that.

Turtwig

Obliq wrote: »

Aww Sark....Jer didn't mean you to have a sad face.

No you're right I didn't. Not a sad a face. A miserable depressed and lonely sad face. :mad:
But sadness will have to satisfy me for now.

Obliq

Jernal wrote: »

No you're right I didn't. Not a sad a face. A miserable depressed and lonely sad face. :mad:

Goodness! Something I missed? Mmmhmm, honey it's ok to feel cross. I can see you're mad about something and I don't have to know what it is, ok?! But imagine how you would feel if anyone (not necessarily Sarky...could be anyone!) wanted you to have a miserable depressed and lonely sad face, eh? Try and think about the good times you'll have again....

You guys are so LIKE each other at times :P


Galve???? GALVE?

Obliq

Sorry, sorry....been refereeing here at home. Seemed to naturally translate to up here for some reason. :rolleyes:

Bann, your GD sounds like any/every free thinking child that has little or no expectation of the next big thing (nice to see) who has to be persuaded to go through with some ritual they already know is unnecessary - she has a beautiful dress and can't imagine a more beautiful dress. How refreshing is that?!

I shall repeat what my father said to me when I was afraid youngest's father would push for religious indoctrination - "He'll forget it all with his first pint, I wouldn't worry". Not that you're worried, clearly.

MickFleetwood

My sister did it a few days ago and she admittedly doesn't believe in God. In this country if you don't partake in it you receive a stigma it seems. You make money, have a bit of a party and a fun day etc. When you go home. I had a laugh with some mates and family on her Confirmation, she made some money and it was a good day.

No need to be cynical about it.

otto_26

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A) Christmas is a pagan festival, with origins in Northern Europe. Therefore if you want to talk about stealing it, take the beam from your own eye first.

Jesus wasn't born at christmas. According to the bible the best date for his birthday would be sometime in the Autumn. Shepards do not leave their flocks out on hills in winter, not even in Israel.

Who said anything about stealing it?? I celebrate the religious event of Christmas.. all ways have and always will.. so not sure how it could be stolen

Who said Jesus was born on Christmas day in this thread?? we are on about celebrating a religious event and hypocrites.

otto_26

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I love Christmas. For me it as about spending time with family and friends, showing appreciation with gifts and preparing lovely food. It is a day where families come together and our family celebrates that. The fact we have each other. Has nothing to do with Christianity for us. I adore Christmas Trees, decorating the house, Santa coming etc. I don't care that Christians place religious significance on the day at all. We all have holidays and dinners at each others houses to celebrate friends and family.

I don't know if I've even told my son that Christians think it's Jesus birthday. Might have mentioned it, but he wouldn't care a less so long as Santa is coming. I like Santa because it's a fairytale full of magic, but unlike religion children are expected to realise the truth at a certain age.

Sounds like a lovely way to spend Christmas. What do you and your family do for lent?

Kiwi in IE

otto_26 wrote: »

Sounds like a lovely way to spend Christmas. What do you and your family do for lent?

Bake loads of tempting goodies, buy nice bottles of wine and offer them to Catholics who come to visit

Seriously? Lent is not something that is even on my radar. I am only ever made aware of its existence if my mother in law tells me she can't have something I have offered her because she has given whatever it is up. Other than that it would come and go without my awareness.

shes_crazy

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A) Christmas is a pagan festival, with origins in Northern Europe. Therefore if you want to talk about stealing it, take the beam from your own eye first.

Jesus wasn't born at christmas. According to the bible the best date for his birthday would be sometime in the Autumn. Shepards do not leave their flocks out on hills in winter, not even in Israel.

Do you think historians and biblical scholars aren't aware of your "observations"?

(or maybe you actually believe that the whole house of cards has just come crashing down because you have spoken on the internet)

You do know that Christianity successfully conquered paganism and appropriated its festivals for the greater good?

shruikan2553

shes_crazy wrote: »

Do you think historians and biblical scholars aren't aware of your "observations"?

(or maybe you actually believe that the whole house of cards has just come crashing down because you have spoken on the internet)

You do know that Christianity successfully conquered paganism and appropriated its festivals for the greater good?

What was this "greater good"? Saving the filthy pagans from a life of sin?

lazygal

MickFleetwood wrote: »

My sister did it a few days ago and she admittedly doesn't believe in God. In this country if you don't partake in it you receive a stigma it seems. You make money, have a bit of a party and a fun day etc. When you go home. I had a laugh with some mates and family on her Confirmation, she made some money and it was a good day.

No need to be cynical about it.

I think there's ample room to be cynical about sacraments people take because they'll have a laugh and make some money, rather than because they actually believe in the faith they're signing up to. Of course this is why children of 12 shouldn't be making promises like this in the first place.

Undergod

Article I saw on reddit: Laois priest suggests not taking sacraments until much later in life.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/delay-communions-until-adulthood-says-priest-232680.html

MickFleetwood

lazygal wrote: »

I think there's ample room to be cynical about sacraments people take because they'll have a laugh and make some money, rather than because they actually believe in the faith they're signing up to. Of course this is why children of 12 shouldn't be making promises like this in the first place.

When I was younger I vehemently disagreed with my parents about doing my Confirmation because I didn't believe in God. Our class had to take a Pledge and I was the only one in a group of thirty to not take it. My teacher gave out to me of course. :rolleyes:

I was eventually talked into to doing it via money. My viewpoint at the time was along the lines of; Well, I could make a decent bit of money by doing this. So I did it, exclusively for the money.

If you feel that strongly about children who don't believe in God taking the sacraments, do something about it. I asked my sister yesterday, who is a firm atheist, why she did it, she simply stated because she wanted to. Making money is an advantage so my mindset was why not?

lazygal

MickFleetwood wrote: »

When I was younger I vehemently disagreed with my parents about doing my Confirmation because I didn't believe in God. Our class had to take a Pledge and I was the only one in a group of thirty to not take it. My teacher gave out to me of course. :rolleyes:

I was eventually talked into to doing it via money. My viewpoint at the time was along the lines of; Well, I could make a decent bit of money by doing this. So I did it, exclusively for the money.

If you feel that strongly about children who don't believe in God taking the sacraments, do something about it. I asked my sister yesterday, who is a firm atheist, why she did it, she simply stated because she wanted to. Making money is an advantage so my mindset was why not?

You posted telling us not to be cynical. I'm merely pointed out the absurdity of telling people not to be cynical when you're posting that the reasons for taking the sacraments are nothing to do with religious faith. I'll be as cynical as I like about scenarios like this.

MickFleetwood

lazygal wrote: »

You posted telling us not to be cynical. I'm merely pointed out the absurdity of telling people not to be cynical when you're posting that the reasons for taking the sacraments are nothing to do with religious faith. I'll be as cynical as I like about scenarios like this.

I didn't post telling anybody not to be cynical. :rolleyes: It's not a big deal at all. You seem to be exceedingly defensive about all this. I said there's no need to be cynical. If a few kids taking a sacrament because it's the done thing in Ireland bothers you this much then do something about it.

Bannasidhe

MickFleetwood wrote: »

I didn't post telling anybody not to be cynical. :rolleyes: It's not a big deal at all. You seem to be exceedingly defensive about all this. I said there's no need to be cynical. If a few kids taking a sacrament because it's the done thing in Ireland bothers you this much then do something about it.

Perhaps some of us take oaths and vows quite seriously and don't accept that because it is 'the done thing' it is acceptable to lie under oath.

Personally, I think enough damage has been done in this country because people just go along with 'the done thing' with an 'ah sure what's the harm/what can you do eh' attitude - not to mention a collective casual attitude towards telling the truth.

I did do something - I refused to do 'the done thing'.

lazygal

MickFleetwood wrote: »

I didn't post telling anybody not to be cynical ... I said there's no need to be cynical.

I've nothing to be defensive about. My children won't be doing sacraments at inappropriate ages - if they want to take on a religion when they're old enough, that's up to them. Nothing defensive about that.

Of course, I'd rather not have no choice but to send them to school with the nice day out, laugh and money brigade, which is why I'm a strong advocate for a secular school system. But maybe that doesn't count as 'doing something about it'. For the laugh.

oldrnwisr

shes_crazy wrote: »

You do know that Christianity successfully conquered paganism and appropriated its festivals for the greater good?

Usually its a good idea to support your claim with evidence rather than restate it. It helps to advance the overall debate.

In any case, I'm not really sure that your argument has any merit, particularly worded as it is.

The first point is that Christianity doesn't really conquer anything. It incorporates. It is a syncretic religion. You can still see this in the incorporation of Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Greek and other myths into biblical stories. Conquering would imply that Christianity has an inherent uniqueness which allows it to wipe out indigenous beliefs. However, the appeal of Christianity, certainly for the first 1000 years, was its syncretism, its ability to incorporate the pre-existing stories of the indigenous peoples which gave it a certain familiarity while similarly demonstrating its superiority. The Bible even does this to itself in places. In 2 Kings 4 Elisha heals a comatose boy. In Mark 5, the story is retold with Jesus raising Jairus' daughter from the dead. So the story is familiar to those who read it while at the same time showing Jesus' superiority to Elisha.

The second point is that I'm not really sure that successful is an appropriate term for the spread of Christianity. Firstly, as it stands right now there are about 2 billion christians in the world out of a total of 7+ billion, so Christianity hardly dominates. Secondly, if you are referring to replacing indigenous religions, the Christians took their sweet time about it. Even just taking northern Europe as an example, while Christianity reached Northern Europe in the latter half of the first millennium, it didn't really gain any traction for about 400 years or so and even then belief in the Norse gods and other elements of Norse mythology survived into the 20th century. Finally, right now there are over 1 million followers of paganism in the world and its numbers are continuing to grow. Paganism has seen a resurgence since the 1930s and particularly with the decline of Christianity in Europe so all in all I'm not sure that successful is how I'd describe it.

Finally, you refer to the spread of Christianity as some sort of greater good. Would you care to explain this phrase? I mean, after all, all Christianity did was swap out one set of myths and creation stories for another. Nothing particularly good about that. It's not like the Christian moral code was a big improvement over existing civilisations (e.g. pre-Christian Ireland) either. So I fail to see what is good about the spread of Christianity at the expense of indigenous religions.

marienbad

shes_crazy wrote: »

Do you think historians and biblical scholars aren't aware of your "observations"?

(or maybe you actually believe that the whole house of cards has just come crashing down because you have spoken on the internet)

You do know that Christianity successfully conquered paganism and appropriated its festivals for the greater good?

The mind boggles at such tripe ! I suppose this is what indoctrination does to people.

Doctor Strange

shruikan2553 wrote: »

What was this "greater good"? Saving the filthy pagans from a life of sin?

Galvasean

the culture of deference wrote: »

Jernal Sarky and Galve are the trilogy on boards

Didn't realise I was held in such high regard. Everybody had a canniption fit when I was away.... That's nice. FWIW I had a job interview (got it - ya'all can worship me now) and a match (we won - continue worshiping) so didn't have much internet time yesterday.

On topic:

Somebody says the most cynical thing imaginable then asks people not be be cynical... I love you internet

shes_crazy

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Usually its a good idea to support your claim with evidence rather than restate it. It helps to advance the overall debate.

In any case, I'm not really sure that your argument has any merit, particularly worded as it is.

The first point is that Christianity doesn't really conquer anything. It incorporates. It is a syncretic religion. You can still see this in the incorporation of Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Greek and other myths into biblical stories. Conquering would imply that Christianity has an inherent uniqueness which allows it to wipe out indigenous beliefs. However, the appeal of Christianity, certainly for the first 1000 years, was its syncretism, its ability to incorporate the pre-existing stories of the indigenous peoples which gave it a certain familiarity while similarly demonstrating its superiority. The Bible even does this to itself in places. In 2 Kings 4 Elisha heals a comatose boy. In Mark 5, the story is retold with Jesus raising Jairus' daughter from the dead. So the story is familiar to those who read it while at the same time showing Jesus' superiority to Elisha.

The second point is that I'm not really sure that successful is an appropriate term for the spread of Christianity. Firstly, as it stands right now there are about 2 billion christians in the world out of a total of 7+ billion, so Christianity hardly dominates. Secondly, if you are referring to replacing indigenous religions, the Christians took their sweet time about it. Even just taking northern Europe as an example, while Christianity reached Northern Europe in the latter half of the first millennium, it didn't really gain any traction for about 400 years or so and even then belief in the Norse gods and other elements of Norse mythology survived into the 20th century. Finally, right now there are over 1 million followers of paganism in the world and its numbers are continuing to grow. Paganism has seen a resurgence since the 1930s and particularly with the decline of Christianity in Europe so all in all I'm not sure that successful is how I'd describe it.

Finally, you refer to the spread of Christianity as some sort of greater good. Would you care to explain this phrase? I mean, after all, all Christianity did was swap out one set of myths and creation stories for another. Nothing particularly good about that. It's not like the Christian moral code was a big improvement over existing civilisations (e.g. pre-Christian Ireland) either. So I fail to see what is good about the spread of Christianity at the expense of indigenous religions.

Long-winded faf.

The fact is that Christianity is culturally superior to anything that atheism has ever produced. This cultural superiority did not come about by accident. It is based on a set of core Truths that have been rejected by many sorry (and now helpless) souls down throughout the ages. In this regard <snip> despite how hip and cool today's atheists think they are [nothing new] <snip>

I suggest a trip to Rome where you can see for yourself the rich history and cultural influence the Catholic Church has had over Europe and the world as a whole. There you will see how Christianity successfully defeated slavery, debauchery and death of old and brought about order, structure and beauty for millions of people down throughout the ages. This continues today and its momentum is far greater than anything atheism can get going.

Anyway, for someone who has obviously had the benefit of a Christian influence on his life; <snip>atheists have some neck to go it alone.<snip>.

The Black Oil

Are you looking to sub for John Waters when he goes on holidays?

Turtwig

She's Crazy. Your opinion is welcome here; direct personal comments on another poster aren't. Please don't do it any more. Otherwise you may find yourself taking a holiday.
Thanks,

marienbad

shes_crazy wrote: »

Long-winded faf.

The fact is that Christianity is culturally superior to anything that atheism has ever produced. This cultural superiority did not come about by accident. It is based on a set of core Truths that have been rejected by many sorry (and now helpless) souls down throughout the ages. In this regard <snip> despite how hip and cool today's atheists think they are [nothing new] <snip>

I suggest a trip to Rome where you can see for yourself the rich history and cultural influence the Catholic Church has had over Europe and the world as a whole. There you will see how Christianity successfully defeated slavery, debauchery and death of old and brought about order, structure and beauty for millions of people down throughout the ages. This continues today and its momentum is far greater than anything atheism can get going.

Anyway, for someone who has obviously had the benefit of a Christian influence on his life; <snip>atheists have some neck to go it alone.<snip>.

Tell me how it defeated slavery ?

And after that you might enlighten me on the rich history and cultural influence. And I would like to remind you The Da Vinci and Michelangelo were great because they were great and not because they were Christian.

shes_crazy

marienbad wrote: »

Tell me how it defeated slavery ?

And after that you might enlighten me on the rich history and cultural influence. And I would like to remind you The Da Vinci and Michelangelo were great because they were great and not because they were Christian.

Revisionist twaddle. I suppose you're a Colosseum-denier too? One is left wondering what else you deny...

Pherekydes

marienbad wrote: »

Tell me how it defeated slavery ?

I'm sure many women who were enslaved in the Magdalen laundries would disagree that it had.

Debauchery: yep, they mastered that too.

Death: How has the church defeated death? Noah and his many buddies of the Old Testament routinely lived to over 900 years of age. Since Christianity arrived, the record is about 120-130 years.