Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

eyescreamcone

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The thread title ISN'T:

Exactly what percentage of the population is Christian based on eyescreamcone pulling a number out of his hat and insisting that it is more accurate than every citizen in Ireland (the population), in theory, actually giving a response and therefore a comprehensive answer.

Just because you declare yourself a Christian does not make you one.

If you live according to the values espoused by Mr. J. Christ then you qualify.

Otherwise you are only a wannabe or a bluffer

AerynSun

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If you live according to the values espoused by Mr. J. Christ then you qualify.

And what are you if you live according to those values, but NOT because they were espoused by JC but because they're an intrinsic part of your humanity? Or your Buddhism? Or your Hinduism? Are we going to make everyone who espouses good values an 'honourary Christian'? That's going to complicate the Census even more...

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I did read the posts.



Why does it bother you that he doesn't mention Christians or Christ when he has no obligation to do so, since Ireland isn't a christian nation?

It excludes them from taking part in rituals that they might feel are important. A bishop has been quoted on this thread stating that he would not let them take communion. They obviously can't marry.

And that's nice of Francis and all to say. But is he going to start rolling back all of the churches positions on homosexuals?

Again I have answered your question.
I don't think that them taking alcohol stops them from being Muslim.

I cannot say however if they are misidentifying themselves as muslim because I don't know what their beliefs are.
If they did not believe in God or Mohammad* then I would say they are misidentifying themselves just as the people who call themselves christian but don't believe in god or Jesus are.

Similarly since I don't know what their beliefs are, nor the distinguishing beliefs that define the various branches of Islam I cannot say whether or not they are misidentifying themselves like the people who identify themselves as Catholic but don't adhere to the beliefs that distinguish Catholicism from other branches of Christianity.

*(I am also unsure of what beliefs around Mohammad one must hold to be considered Muslim that compares to the requirement that you must believe that Jesus was the Son of God and was resurrected.)

You however are saying that they cannot interpret their religion in certain ways, which is the exact opposite that some of the other people you seem to be agreeing with are saying.
Catholicism forbids gay acts, but it's ok for catholics to ignore or reinterpret that rule.
Why is it not the same for Islam and intoxicants?

OK, two point here:

1) I am still waiting for you to withdraw your false claim that I ever said Ireland was a "Christian Country.

2) I am still waiting for you to tell me if 9/11's Mohammed Atta, the gambling, strip-club-visiting and hard drinking suicide-bomber and Jahar Tsarnaev, the drug-taking and dealing Boston Bomber are Muslims.

I am not telling you that they can or can't interpret anything in a specific way I am telling you that they can sin and still be Muslim just as a Muslim can sin exactly as a Christian can sin and still be a Christian. Why do you think they have chaplains in prisons in Ireland if according to your logic a criminal -- thou shall not steal, thou shalt not kill etc -- are by default non-Christian?

I am not the one with double-standards here, though I am glad you agree that it is hypocritical to to consider self-declared Muslims as Muslim despite their unislamic acts and at the same time consider self-declared Christians as not being Christians due to unChristian acts.

eyescreamcone

AerynSun wrote: »

And what are you if you live according to those values, but NOT because they were espoused by JC but because they're an intrinsic part of your humanity? Or your Buddhism? Or your Hinduism? Are we going to make everyone who espouses good values an 'honourary Christian'? That's going to complicate the Census even more...

What has the OP question got to do with a census result?

It seems that different posters have different views on what a Christian is.

I don't see much evidence of Christ-friendly lifestyles in the majority of the citizens of this state.

Your opinion may differ!

Brown Bomber

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Just because you declare yourself a Christian does not make you one.

If you live according to the values espoused by Mr. J. Christ then you qualify.

Otherwise you are only a wannabe or a bluffer

Why does a Christian require your approval to make a personal decision where your opinion has no relevance?

AerynSun

eyescreamcone wrote: »

What has the OP question got to do with a census result?

Have you read much of this thread?

It seems that different posters have different views on what a Christian is.

And this is being debated because of the need to determine who 'counts' when your counting Catholics or Christians, and who doesn't, and therefore discussing the accuracy of the data being collected in the Census where people self-identify as one thing or another, while people dispute their right or their reason in doing so.

I don't see much evidence of Christ-friendly lifestyles in the majority of the citizens of this state.

Luke 6:37 - Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.

Matthew 7:1-2 - Do not judge so that you will not be judged. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.…"

John 8:7 - When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her".

Romans 2:1 - You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Romans 14:10 - You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

1 Corinthians 4:5 - Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.

Your opinion may differ!

I imagine that it does.

eyescreamcone

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why does a Christian require your approval to make a personal decision where your opinion has no relevance?

I have opinions on lots of things.
People will disagree with some of them.

However, if someone says he is one thing but his actions suggest otherwise, then my calling him a bluffer is being kind.

Brown Bomber

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I have opinions on lots of things.
People will disagree with some of them.

However, if someone says he is one thing but his actions suggest otherwise, then my calling him a bluffer is being kind.

You are welcome to your opinions. However, you haven't answered my question - When John Smith from Galway considers himself Christian, which is a private relationship between John Smith and his Church, who accept his membership, what business is it of yours? Why are your opinions on what John Smith is more important than his own opinions?

Saint Thomas doubted Christ's resurrection. Saint Paul denied Christ. Are they Christians or "bluffers"?

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

The abuse scandals probably hit the RCC negatively in terms of blind faith . The fact that divorce only passed by a narrow margin and homosexuality was illegal up until the early 90s is a sign of how they had considerable influence in terms of how the Irish public viewed subjects in recent history .

You are implying that being against divorce and gayness is exclusive to being Catholic which is obviously wrong.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, two point here:

1) I am still waiting for you to withdraw your false claim that I ever said Ireland was a "Christian Country.

2) I am still waiting for you to tell me if 9/11's Mohammed Atta, the gambling, strip-club-visiting and hard drinking suicide-bomber and Jahar Tsarnaev, the drug-taking and dealing Boston Bomber are Muslims.

Both of these things are addressed in the post you quoted.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not telling you that they can or can't interpret anything in a specific way I am telling you that they can sin and still be Muslim just as a Muslim can sin exactly as a Christian can sin and still be a Christian. Why do you think they have chaplains in prisons in Ireland if according to your logic a criminal -- thou shall not steal, thou shalt not kill etc -- are by default non-Christian?

That's not my logic.

My logic is that if someone does not agree with the defining beliefs of catholism, then they can't be catholic.
What differentiates Catholics from other christians is (among others) a believe that there is 7 holy sacraments or that Mary was a virgin.
If some one does not hold these beliefs, then they do not hold the beliefs that define being catholic.

If however being catholic (or any other religion) can mean whatever someone wants it to be, then there is no difference between being catholic and being protestant or being a muslim. This makes the words meaningless.

So are catholics the same as protestants?Are Catholics the same as Muslims? If so, explain how you can tell one from the other?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not the one with double-standards here, though I am glad you agree that it is hypocritical to to consider self-declared Muslims as Muslim despite their unislamic acts and at the same time consider self-declared Christians as not being Christians due to unChristian acts.

You are misrepresenting what I said because you are unwilling to actually read what I said.

I never said that any one is not catholic or non Christan because of their behavior. I just said the rather wacky proposition that if someone doesn't believe the defining beliefs of a religion, then they don't believe in that religion.

A Christian who sins does not stop being a Christian. I never said different.
A christian who doesn't think god or Jesus exists, doesnt believe in the holy spirit or resurrection, doesn't attend mass or church, doesn't thing the bible is divinely inspired, doesn't think any clergy are divinely guide, doesn't believe in an afterlife and doesn't believe in sin can't really be defined as a christian if the word has any meaning.
He can call himself christian if he wants, but he could call himself a lizard too, but that won't make him one.

The big issue you are trying to skirt around because you can't get outraged about it is that the numbers of people who self identify as Catholic or Christian is not the same as or indicative of the numbers of people who agree with church positions or want things like church run schools.

And the census can't even really tell us that. It just tells us the number of people who ticked that box. So using that number for anything else is a misuse.

eyescreamcone

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are welcome to your opinions. However, you haven't answered my question - When John Smith from Galway considers himself Christian, which is a private relationship between John Smith and his Church, who accept his membership, what business is it of yours? Why are your opinions on what John Smith is more important than his own opinion

If Mr. Smith called himself a fitness fanatic but never got off the couch and had a BMI north of 30, would we accept his self assessment as being accurate??

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are implying that being against divorce and gayness is exclusive to being Catholic which is obviously wrong.

The court judgement that concluded that the sodomy law would remain commented on Ireland being a "Christian Country" as one of the baselines for retaining such a law. The main opposition to the divorce referendum were Catholic organisations and they had plenty of influence.The influence of the RCC in modern Ireland isn't exactly new in terms of history. I never implied it was exclusive btw.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, two point here:

1) I am still waiting for you to withdraw your false claim that I ever said Ireland was a "Christian Country.

If you were not implying that Ireland is a christian country when you said that 90% of people in Ireland are christian, what is your argument for president Higgins having to specifically mention christianity in his xmas address? Ireland is ~90% white, should he have specifically mentioned white people in his xmas address too?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2) I am still waiting for you to tell me if 9/11's Mohammed Atta, the gambling, strip-club-visiting and hard drinking suicide-bomber and Jahar Tsarnaev, the drug-taking and dealing Boston Bomber are Muslims.

Do you have any evidence for these claims? Evidence not from some conspiracy site or some rag tabloid, and that doesn't just show them as being less or non-religious in their past before they become fundamentalist.

Even accepting these claims are accurate, muslims believe that even though they will punished for their sins, that punishment will be only temporary and they will get into heaven regardless. These men may also have believed that the reward for their attacks would eliminate the punishment for their previous actions.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not the one with double-standards here, though I am glad you agree that it is hypocritical to to consider self-declared Muslims as Muslim despite their unislamic acts and at the same time consider self-declared Christians as not being Christians due to unChristian acts.

As has been said repeatedly before, its not just the acts, its the beliefs. It is accepted in christianity that people can fail adhere to the rules, even while believing they should stick to them, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. The problem is when so many people actively and repeatedly ignore the rules not just out of gross ignorance, but because they actively disagree with them.

AerynSun

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If Mr. Smith called himself a fitness fanatic but never got off the couch and had a BMI north of 30, would we accept his self assessment as being accurate??

Fitness is achieved by putting in work.

Likening Christianity to fitness fanaticism suggests that people have to 'work' at being Christian before they can count themselves 'actual' Christians... so are you saying that Christians are saved through their works rather than by the grace of God?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are welcome to your opinions. However, you haven't answered my question - When John Smith from Galway considers himself Christian, which is a private relationship between John Smith and his Church, who accept his membership, what business is it of yours? Why are your opinions on what John Smith is more important than his own opinions?

Saint Thomas doubted Christ's resurrection. Saint Paul denied Christ. Are they Christians or "bluffers"?

But you believe that Johns Smiths private relationship with the church should influence the president of the entire country into altering a public speech so as to make specific mention of it. How exactly is that a private relationship?

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Saint Thomas doubted Christ's resurrection. Saint Paul denied Christ. Are they Christians or "bluffers"?

I imagine that if Thomas had continued to doubt, and Paul had continued to deny, neither of them would be considered Christians, and I guess that if they were so doubting and denying, they wouldn't consider themselves Christians either. Ridiculously hypothetical as it might be.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you were not implying that Ireland is a christian country when you said that 90% of people in Ireland are christian, what is your argument for president Higgins having to specifically mention christianity in his xmas address? Ireland is ~90% white, should he have specifically mentioned white people in his xmas address too?

It's called CHRISTmas.

The default position is to mention Christ at Christmas. IF Bibi Netanyahu, who would hate the false prophet Yeshua can wish mention Christ in his his CHRISTmas messages then surely the President of a land officially 90% can do so too.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you have any evidence for these claims? Evidence not from some conspiracy site or some rag tabloid, and that doesn't just show them as being less or non-religious in their past before they become fundamentalist.

1 - Rag tabloid? Have you forgotten that one of your main sources is Irishcentral.com?
2- Can you provide evidence of Jahar Tsarnaev, for example being a "fundamentalist"?
3. Sources, ATTA:

TREASURE ISLAND -- Employees on a SunCruz gambling ship that sails from John's Pass think some of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were gambling on the ship the week before the attacks.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/092701/news_pf/TampaBay/Hijackers_linked_to_l.shtml

While preparing to unleash their twisted ``holy war'' on America, some of the suicide hijackers set aside strict religious beliefs to whet their lusty appetites, partying with a high-priced hooker in Hub hotel rooms. A driver for a pair of local escort services told the Herald yesterday that he drove a call girl to the Park Inn in Chestnut Hill on Sept. 9 around 10:30 p.m. where she bedded down with one of the mass murderers. It was her second trip to the terrorist's room that day
http://web.archive.org/web/20011010224657/http://www.bostonherald.com/attack/investigation/ausprob10102001.htm




On Sept. 7, 2001, Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi pounded down drinks at Shuckums Oyster Bar on Young Circle in Hollywood.
They played video games, then argued with a waitress and a manager over a $48 tab
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/911-mastermind-may-be-gone-but-troubled-memories-l/nLsCX/


But one thing seems clear. The self-styled warriors for Allah -- who believed their hijackings would earn them eager virgins in heaven -- engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures in America's reputed capital of moral corrosion.
The fact that she played a role in that sampling was disturbing enough to Samantha, but after recognizing 23-year-old Al-Shehhi's bearded face, she had another shock coming. It turned out one of his accomplices, Mohamed Atta -- thought to be the ringleader of the entire four-jet attack that demolished the twin towers and part of the Pentagon -- stayed in the cheap Econo Lodge just a couple of blocks from the Olympic along The Strip.
Now, she can think of little else.
"Some of the girls here remember a couple of those guys coming in here in August, too," said Samantha, who like three other Olympic "Samanthas" preferred that her family not read her real name in a newspaper. "It's freaking us all out.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011005064709/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN102970.DTL


Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, College Weed Dealer - The Wire

www.thewire.com/.../04/...tsarnaev...drugs/64529/‎Översätt den här sidan
24 apr 2013 - "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a scholarship student who earned spending money by selling marijuana, say three people who bought drugs from the ...

That is all I have time for now, but should suffice, strip-clubs, gambling, drinking and drugs, to establish that Tsarnaev and Atta did things to were against the teachings of Islam. Sooo.... Muslim or not Muslims?

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's called CHRISTmas.

So what? It's just a name. I don't think of it as CHRISTmas, I think of it as CHRISTMAS.

If we were speaking Irish, it would be Nollaig, what then? Are we off the hook? Is it just English speakers who have to mention Christ at Christmas?

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

So what? It's just a name. I don't think of it as CHRISTmas, I think of it as CHRISTMAS.

If we were speaking Irish, it would be Nollaig, what then? Are we off the hook? Is it just English speakers who have to mention Christ at Christmas?

Found this online.

This is what 'focal an lae' says about the word Nollaig:

History: Old Irish "Notlaic" comes from Latin "natalicia" (= of the dayof birth), from the verb "(g)nasci" (to be born), which can be traced backultimately to the Indo-European root *gen- (to give birth).



The same root - 'natalicia' - gives the word for Christmas in all the Celtic languages:

Nollaig - Irish
Nollaig - Scottish Gaelic
Nollik - Manx
Nadolig - Welsh
Nedelek - Breton
Nadelek - Cornish

Christmas in Welsh is also often called Gŵyl y Geni - The Feast of the Birth

*gen- in Indo-European gives geni in Welsh (to give birth)

So who being born do you think they are referring to?

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Found this online.

So who being born do you think they are referring to?

The name obviously derives from the Birth of Christ, but again, so what? Friday (like some other week days) derives its name from an old god or goddess, in this case the goddess Frigg, that doesn't mean that today it's anything other than a label for the day between Thursday and Saturday.

eyescreamcone

I like to call it Xmas :-)

swampgas

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I like to call it Xmas :-)

Then apparently you are supposed to talk about 'X' on Xmas day, you know, just because ... :-)

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's called CHRISTmas.

The default position is to mention Christ at Christmas.

The default position is to swap some presents and overeat on some sort of poultry product. Personally, I mentioned the UK monarch, but at no point JC, or indeed anything to do with any of the Abrahamic religions, and wasn't aware of consciously changing from any "default position". Easter is named after a German pagan goddess: do you find that the "default position" is to namecheck her, and perhaps perform assorted pagan rites during the holiest Christian festival?

surely the President of a land officially 90% can do so too.

Oh, good grief. Over a thousand messages later, and you just loop back to the same repeatedly rebutted tabloid subhead. Census "apologists" segue straight from "the census is completely grand as it is; of course, you wouldn't want to read any political imperatives directly from it"... to reading political imperatives from it.

Unpleasant ethnobaiting snipped. Nasty and derailly, to my mind. Threads about Christianity. Inflammatory fatuous comparisons (to be kind) to Jews and Muslims aren't going to help anyone with anything.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why does a Christian require your approval to make a personal decision where your opinion has no relevance?

As that's not what he said, the question fails to stand.

Rather, the question is, why does someone who claims to be a Christian, but who displays none of the defining characteristics of being a Christian, deserve reverential deference and acquiescence for their meaningless protestation? Trying to flip it around to "religious oppression!" is a non-flier. (As in, a repeated rhetorical crasher-directly-into-the-ground.)

alaimacerc

AerynSun wrote: »

The marianology is hardly a higher level test of good catholicity than an accurate grasp of eucharistic theology?? Eucharistic theology, or bust! (IMO)

Well, IIRC I just listed the two conjunctively: the two taken together seem to me to be the most distinctive points. Your Priorities May Vary!

Whether someone believing in transubstantiation but no part of Marian doctrine is more Catholic/a better Catholic than someone holding the reverse position I honestly don't know. Certainly either position is "more Catholic than many" (functionally Protestant or functionally atheist "Catholics", etc), neither would in practice get you excomm'd, both would be serious disciplinary matters if you espoused them from any church position, or too obnoxiously loudly as a lay person.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

When John Smith from Galway considers himself Christian, which is a private relationship between John Smith and his Church, who accept his membership, what business is it of yours?

Gas stuff. a) You're the person touting this "private relationship" as the basis of Ireland being "officially 90% Christian". b) No-one's privacy or religious rights are being violated here. Or gone anywhere remotely near, frankly. The question is, is the documented existence of such people in the abstract, with statistically reliable estimates of which of them believe what, an admissible topic for public discussion? Clearly, it is. Especially when it makes people's self-descriptions look very faulty, and the churches themselves (and one of them in particular) look as if they're very much having it both ways by presenting a litany of belief as being "mandatory", then "accepting the membership" of people not within a bull's roar of any of 'em.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are implying that being against divorce and gayness is exclusive to being Catholic which is obviously wrong.

I don't believe he is. There's obviously not an 100% correlation. But would anyone deny there's a higher marginal rate of such opposition?

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Alternatively, this widespread ignorance of Catholic doctrine, which has already been admitted in this thread flies in the face of any supposed intense levels of indoctrination.

Fancifully, rather. First, the evidence that's been produced in this thread is widespread disbelief is Catholic doctrine among Catholics. I don't think Catholics not believing in god, resurrection, heaven, hell, everlasting life, and four improbable (and unbiblical!) biofacts about Mary is because "this is great stuff! why'd no-one ever tell me before!" It's because they have no basis for belief in such claims, and every reason not to believe them.

Second, "only very partially successful indoctrination" is not evidence that indoctrination was attempted, or indeed that it didn't partially succeed. Rather, it would seem to show pretty strong evidence that the cultural-"religious" priorities are very different from the notional creed.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's called CHRISTmas.

The default position is to mention Christ at Christmas.

Wednesday (Odin), Thursday (Thor) and Friday (Frigg) are all also named after deities. I don't think the default position is to mention Christ, I don't think anyone who wished me a Merry Christmas mention Christ at any rate.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

IF Bibi Netanyahu, who would hate the false prophet Yeshua can wish mention Christ in his his CHRISTmas messages then surely the President of a land officially 90% can do so too.

He can, but does he need to? 90% of the land is white, should he specifically name drop whites?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1 - Rag tabloid? Have you forgotten that one of your main sources is Irishcentral.com?

Yes, actually, what did I use that as a main source for?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2- Can you provide evidence of Jahar Tsarnaev, for example being a "fundamentalist"?

His and his brothers motives are generally believed to be, at least in part, religiously fundamentalist in nature. Political motivations, of course, are also believed to have been a strong factor.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is all I have time for now, but should suffice, strip-clubs, gambling, drinking and drugs, to establish that Tsarnaev and Atta did things to were against the teachings of Islam. Sooo.... Muslim or not Muslims?

Actually they don't satisfy at all, as all you have given is unverified news reports of a very small number of people who think or claim to have dealt with Tsarnaev and Atta before their attacks.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Alternatively, this widespread ignorance of Catholic doctrine, which has already been admitted in this thread flies in the face of any supposed intense levels of indoctrination.

That's because the indoctrination in this country is purely to get people to mindlessly label themselves as catholic. The RCC is not so stupid as to start pushing against the likes of gay marriage rights here in Ireland in the same way they push against it in the likes of Africa, as the nature of their power-base is very different. The fact that so many people will label themselves as catholic despite actively not doing or believing quite a lot specifically prescribed in the doctrine proves that they are quite effective at indoctrinating at this level, not to mention happy to do so.