Making Confirmation and regular attendance at Mass

nozzferrahhtoo

beauf wrote: »

Actually your comment that I quoted...was quite sweeping in that it encompassed many religions that recognise the bible, not simply the RC.

I just pointed out that such a broad vague generalisation couldn't possibly be true.

That again is not what I said. I was talking about individuals who profess to believe in the bible. I never said "most". You simply made that up. The generalisation came from you, not me.

Keep your words out of my mouth please, I have more than enough of my own.

beauf

"...individuals who profess to believe in the bible.."

See that's still a very large generalisation and still not just one religion either.

beauf

Bob_Marley wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

I love the believer tag. That's like half the planet.

more like 84% and rising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_(Bob_Marley_and_the_Wailers_album)

Love the bob...

Nettle Soup

beauf wrote: »

I love the believer tag. That's like half the planet.

I think people have always needed something to believe in. It explains the 200+ known/documented deities. Not knowing why we exist or how we got here drives some people nuts. Even in the Old Testament, Moses supposedly shows his people several amazing miracles as they escape Egypt and the Pharoah and yet, as soon as his back is turned, they start believing in a calf made from gold. Religions fills the human need for finding meaning in their lives. These common beliefs also helped control larger groups as we evolved.

beauf

Trey Quick Flame wrote: »

.. why do so many parents, including those who are against the baptism issue, present their child for it and Communion, when they don't have to?

I'm not sure why you think people who are against any of it are bringing their kids to communion and confirmation. Where are you getting that from...

In the people I know the anti religion % more closely matches the census broadly than it does the activity in forums and media. I think it's over represented there and here. I wouldn't really know that many very religious people. I'd know a more atheists though.

I don't think the census reflects religious fervour, more cultural identity. But that's just my opinion.

beauf

Nettle Soup wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

I love the believer tag. That's like half the planet.

I think people have always needed something to believe in. It explains the 200+ known/documented deities. Not knowing why we exist or how we got here drives some people nuts. Even in the Old Testament, Moses supposedly shows his people several amazing miracles as they escape Egypt and the Pharoah and yet, as soon as his back is turned, they start believing in a calf made from gold. Religions fills the human need for finding meaning in their lives. These common beliefs also helped control larger groups as we evolved.

For sure.

Also Human nature and the quest for higher purpose. Then naturalism etc.

nozzferrahhtoo

beauf wrote: »

"...individuals who profess to believe in the bible.." See that's still a very large generalisation and still not just one religion either.

Talking about individuals is not a generalisation. Nothing about the "most" you invented on my behalf. Is this to become a lesson in basic English, or would you like to return to what I ACTUALLY said?

AGAIN, all I said was that it strikes me as strange when individuals who profess to believe in gods, such as the Christian god, do not bother to even look at the book that is central to the religion they claim to believe in.

Does this not strike you as at all strange? Would you, if you believe or believed in the unsubstantiated nonsense that is the Christian religion.... not feel somewhat compelled to actually read the book?

beauf

generalization
...
a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.

This thread is full of sweeping generalizations which can't possibly be true. All are intended to imply something else.
Regardless if mean "you" as all of you, you the individuals in your little anecdote, individuals not just those in your anecdote, or some just a some other mystery random selection...

Do I think its strange people don't read the manual. No.
Do I think people sending their kids for confirmation are likely to never have seen a bible. No.
Do I think they've never read or heard any of it. No its quoted everywhere not least at mass, and its unlikely to have avoid mass your entire life if you are sending a child to confirmation.
Even if you are person who reads everything including all the labels on everything on the table the bible is not a page turner. At some point you will go back to reading the ingredients on the brown sauce.

nozzferrahhtoo

beauf wrote: »

This thread is full of sweeping generalizations which can't possibly be true. All are intended to imply something else.

Then by all means take it up with the people doing it. They are not my problem. If you want to take me up on something I said, rather than what "the thread" has said, then I am here for you. I am not answering for/to anyone else.

The "imply something else" mantra however just sounds like you are trying to justify your approach so far of taking what people actually have said, and warping it into things they have not said. That is not "imply something else" though. That IS something else. Try replying to what people say, not what you want them to have said. That being, after all, how conversation actually works.

beauf wrote: »

Do I think its strange people don't read the manual. No.

Then there we differ. I just know that if I believed the unsubstantiated nonsense of a religion like Christianity, where I thought some god had control over my ETERNAL well being, then I would go out of my way to learn all I could about that god and what it wants.

If said god is meant to have been sending us messages via a particular book, I would certainly therefore go out of my way to read that book AT LEAST once. But most likely I would make reading it, and re-reading it, part of my life long works.

In fact it would be positively immoral for me NOT to do so given the eternal well being of my loved ones, my children, and so forth are also under my care. It would be a positive dereliction of my duty as a parent not to do all I could to ensure the eternal well being of my children.

So yes, at the very least these people should be reading their book. Not going around thinking they know it all because they have been fed the same handful of cherry picked passages over and over again in school and church.

beauf wrote: »

Do I think they've never read or heard any of it. No its quoted everywhere not least at mass

Then is it not wonderful that no one on this thread, least of all me, suggested they had not heard ANY of it? Quite the opposite in fact. So I am not sure who you are replying to with this sentence. But it sure is not me.

beauf wrote: »

Even if you are person who reads everything including all the labels on everything on the table the bible is not a page turner.

If it was the book most useful in ensuring your eternal well being, then I do not think it owes it to you to be interesting. People read a lot more boring things in the pursuit of their careers in college and the like. In fact I do not agree with you about it not being a page turner. The King James version is replete with wonderful passages of quite beautiful language. Language seemingly is not your thing I have noted so far in this discussion, but even then I can not imagine the beauty of some of the text could entirely be lost on you.

I do so with they would ditch religion out of school curriculums everywhere, and put the Bible into an "outdated but still interesting" part of a philosophy curriculum in schools, or into English Literature class where it belongs, and where it can shine. From Milton to Shakespeare, a solid knowledge and grounding in the Bible can add several levels of comprehension and appreciation to other literature on the English Curriculum.

beauf

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then by all means take it up with the people doing it..

Did that.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

..If you want to take me up on something I said, rather than what "the thread" has said, then I am here for you....

...thats generally the purpose of quotes...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...The "imply something else" mantra..

...the definition of generalization is not mine...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then there we differ. I just know that if I believed the unsubstantiated nonsense of a religion like Christianity, where I thought some god had control over my ETERNAL well being, then I would go out of my way to learn all I could about that god and what it wants. ..

I didn't say anything about my beliefs. Simply that not everyone will read the manual or the bible. That's human nature.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I.... In fact I do not agree with you about it not being a page turner. The King James version is replete with wonderful passages of quite beautiful language. Language seemingly is not your thing I have noted so far in this discussion,

I didn't say for me. I said its not a page turner... for everyone. Since we are talking about an undefined group of individuals. Which changes on a whim. But then context and the meaning seems to be difficult for many...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do so with they would ditch religion out of school curriculums ....

I do so too.

Happy to agree.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

beauf wrote: »

I don't know why this is news. Priests have always said this. They will only know who is missing in a small parish. In larger parishes they won't know. They might be going to mass in another church.

The only people who seem insulted this by seem to be those with no interest in the religion. If mass attendance is low and falling it would suggest most Catholics are not insulted by it. Maybe you are especially concerned for the devout. If so why??

You don't see why practising Catholics, for whom the Sacraments are important, might be insulted by people to whom they are meaningless taking part and treating the whole event like a big party. As a pp said, the behaviour of some of those who bring their children to the church to make their first Communion is pretty shocking; talking, texting, taking selfies, clattering in and out of the Church for a cigarette, letting younger kids tear around the place screaming their heads off.

Of course that's disprespectful, in the same way it would be insulting and disrespectful to Jews of Muslims if I sauntered into their place of worship all dressed up to the nines and treated one of their sacred ceremonies like a party.

beauf

I didn't say I didn't understand why devout Catholics find insulting. That's as you'd expect.

But if most people who identify as Catholic don't go to mass, it suggests they don't find it insulting. otherwise they would attend. (What % of the RC membership would we consider devout. I would suggest its a low %)

I shouldn't have said "the only people". I should have said a lot of the people who are insulted by this are those who are not involved in religion.
I would suggest its not because they are actually insulted. Its because they want to remove those people as being identified as Catholic for the purpose of the census and this policy regarding schools, mainly.
Because that's what these thread always go back to.

It would be interesting to discuss the impact on the RC church if disconnects with the less devout , moderate part of its membership. As the clergy disappear, it will have to reply on devout lay people to exist.
I doubt you'd be able to have the discussion on boards though. it would be derailed into something else.

Nettle Soup

beauf wrote: »

I didn't say I didn't understand why devoted Catholics find insulting. That's as you'd expect.

But if most people who identify as Catholic don't go to mass, it suggests they don't find it insulting. otherwise they would attend. (What % of the RC membership would we consider devote. I would suggest its a low %)

I shouldn't have said "the only people". I should have said a lot of the people who are insulted by this are those who are not involved in religion.
I would suggest its not because they are actually insulted. Its because they want to remove those people as being identified as Catholic for the purpose of the census and this policy regarding schools, mainly.
Because that's what these thread always go back to.

It would be interesting to discuss the impact on the RC church if disconnects with the less devote, moderate part of its membership. As the clergy disappear, it will have to reply on devoted lay people to exist.
I doubt you'd be able to have the discussion on boards though. it would be derailed into something else.

You mean devout right?

Nettle Soup

beauf wrote: »

For sure.

Also Human nature and the quest for higher purpose. Then naturalism etc.

So you agree or are you being a slippery eel?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

beauf wrote: »

I didn't say I didn't understand why devoted Catholics find insulting. That's as you'd expect.

But if most people who identify as Catholic don't go to mass, it suggests they don't find it insulting. otherwise they would attend. (What % of the RC membership would we consider devote. I would suggest its a low %)

I shouldn't have said "the only people". I should have said a lot of the people who are insulted by this are those who are not involved in religion.
I would suggest its not because they are actually insulted. Its because they want to remove those people as being identified as Catholic for the purpose of the census and this policy regarding schools, mainly.
Because that's what these thread always go back to.

It would be interesting to discuss the impact on the RC church if disconnects with the less devote, moderate part of its membership. As the clergy disappear, it will have to reply on devoted lay people to exist.
I doubt you'd be able to have the discussion on boards though. it would be derailed into something else.

In my opening post I was talking about people who practise their religion, and who find the sacraments meaningful, finding it insulting when people who don't practise rock up at the Church for a First Communion or Confirmation and then treat the whole ceremony with boredom and lack of respect.

beauf

Nettle Soup wrote: »

You mean devout right?

Yup, thx

beauf

Nettle Soup wrote: »

So you agree or are you being a slippery eel?

For Sure = agree.

beauf

Trey Quick Flame wrote: »

In my opening post I was talking about people who practise their religion, and who find the sacraments meaningful, finding it insulting when people who don't practise rock up at the Church for a First Communion or Confirmation and then treat the whole ceremony with boredom and lack of respect.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that part.

But after hours rarely stays on topic, and any topic that mentions RC is almost always derailed. Need to be flame proof here.

nozzferrahhtoo

beauf wrote: »

Did that. ...thats generally the purpose of quotes...
...the definition of generalization is not mine... I didn't say anything about my beliefs. Simply that not everyone will read the manual or the bible. That's human nature.

The problem here is you did not quote me saying any of the things you pretended I said. Which makes conversation difficult if I am replying to you, and you are replying to an imaginary me. A three way conversation where a version of me exists in your own head only puts everyone else at a disadvantage.

Suffice to say however my comments about individuals failing to read the book they claim to believe was in some way written or influenced by the creator of the universe is VERY different to you claiming I was talking about "most" believers in such a religion.

beauf wrote: »

I didn't say for me. I said its not a page turner... for everyone. Since we are talking about an undefined group of individuals. Which changes on a whim. But then context and the meaning seems to be difficult for many... I do so too. Happy to agree.

So the one making generalisations about "everyone" and so forth is you then, and it never was me? I have to say I have met many people, myself included, who have a very different impression of the text than the one you are foisting on to this imaginary "everyone".

Trey Quick Flame wrote: »

You don't see why practising Catholics, for whom the Sacraments are important, might be insulted by people to whom they are meaningless taking part and treating the whole event like a big party.

I know people for whom they are important, who invited people like me, to things like weddings and baptisms, because the whole event was like a big party. And they were more than happy to see the little kids there and enjoying themselves too. So I guess the word "might" is the most important word you used in that paragraph. Because I just have not met anyone insulted or offended in the way you describe.

The only people I have seen insulted in any way were the ones that emailed me following my collection of the Consecreated Crackers for experimental purposes. But the grounds for their concern were not all that coherent. They were comparing my possession of such crackers to their kidnapping of my children. Which was.... odd. Though if anyone in the world wants to release a kidnapped child for every cracker I release from my drawer I would be more than happy to make such a trade.

beauf

I said its not for everyone...which generally taken to mean not everyone...but don't take my word as gospel.

nozzferrahhtoo

Actually the way you wrote it could be read two ways. It came across as you saying that for everyone it is not a page turner. If I wrote "It smells bad.... for everyone" you would likely read that as as eveyone thinks it smells bad. So when I read "It is not a page turner.... for everyone" I read it the same way.

I mean this as no insult but is English your first language? I am having trouble parsing some of the way you construct sentences. Any information to improve my interpretations there would be useful and appreciated.

But now that we have mostly cleaned up what I have NOT said, we can certainly go back to what WAS said any time you wish to?

beauf

Its a combination of the mobile/touch site and the auto text on my phone. The phone changes words after I type them and then if I don't notice, the touch site doesn't allow me to correct them. I generally edit out the multi quote as its just ridiculous, but sometimes it saves it mid edit and I can't correct it. Hence miss spellings etc. If I'm on the laptop its generally better.

Though I think the main issue is context. You are expecting your comments to be taken in context of your previous comments. But they can't always be read together as the thread has moved on, both figuratively and physically depending on how the user device splits the pages of the thread. You seem to want to revisit old posts. Whereas I'd just move on to the last post. If someone goes back to something that was said earlier its jarring and you have to go back and read what the context was at that time.

beauf

These threads (RC religion) are always a train wreck as there are rarely anyone who is of moderate opinion. They are almost always hard left or right. I bet if you checked everyone who thanks a post on these threads you'd find the same polar opposite view points.

Which is interesting because that might be why the census and peoples expectations don't match. The moderate middle which are probably the vast majority aren't in the debate.

nozzferrahhtoo

beauf wrote: »

Its a combination of the mobile/touch site

Thank you. It is good to know you are suffering from that. I will attempt to read your posts closer to see if I can spot things that perhaps parse more sensibly if I take that into account.

beauf wrote: »

Though I think the main issue is context. You are expecting your comments to be taken in context of your previous comments. But they can't always be read together as the thread has moved on

Well in fairness the first thing you misrepresented from me was in the very first post you replied to. So "The thread moved on" is not really an excuse there.

But I think now that you know I did not, and never have, claimed anything about "most" like you suggested.... it might be worth going back on a few of the points? Up to you. Go back to post #322 and read it again without this error. Or if you do not want to, thank you for your time thus far, I think we are done here.

beauf

...you make hay where you find it...

Hotblack Desiato

Bob_Marley wrote: »

You seem to think the solution is to confiscate and hijack Catholic schools, instead of getting off your arse and applying for funding, and putting in the graft like everyone else.

And when the Dept of Education will not sanction an additional school in that area, what then?

There's nothing wrong with a lot of different types of schools in one area, diversity

Religious segregation is the opposite of diversity. It promotes a suffocating exclusionist monoculture within each type of school.

I expect local schools to reflect the local population in fair proportion

I expect state funded schools to deliver the state curriculum, no more and no less.

Bob_Marley

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And when the Dept of Education will not sanction an additional school in that area, what then?

Why would they not sanction one in an area where there is a genuine demand for places in it ? and if they are not they should instead of you letting them away with it, because it suits your hate fest of Catholics. What would you complain about then ?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Religious segregation is the opposite of diversity. It promotes a suffocating exclusionist monoculture within each type of school.

I expect state funded schools to deliver the state curriculum, no more and no less.[/QUOTE]

Having a diverse choice of schools is not segregation, and instead of one huge faceless impersonal state monoschool in each area, it gives people choice. And if you think it's a good idea to rely on and trust the state to educate your child, more fool you given the quality of other state services, it will be a lot less than more.

Hotblack Desiato

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Why would they not sanction one in an area where there is a genuine demand for places in it ?

Are you not following the news? The Dept of Education clearly see their role as promoting catholic education above all. The handful of schools which have been divested are being hamstrung by the Dept, and are only being allowed to enrol half a class per year when the demand far exceeds this. The Dept says that this is to prevent a drop-off at the existing catholic schools. So much for parental choice!

because it suits your hate fest of Catholics. What would you complain about then ?

You have no sensible argument so you resort to personal attack. The usual AH god botherer M.O.

Having a diverse choice of schools is not segregation

It is when the religious schools discriminate in enrolment on religious lines, and indoctrinate during the school day.

And if you think it's a good idea to rely on and trust the state to educate your child, more fool you given the quality of other state services, it will be a lot less than more.

Far better than having a bunch of unrepentant child abusers running them, tbh.

Do you think all universities should be church run as well, or is there something special about primary and secondary education which necessitates that they cannot be secular?