Would some people "fake" a calling for the sake of a job?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924370#Comment_121924370

It doesn't mean "representational". It never did. Nor is this a point of difference between the major Christian traditions. Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists (Presbyterians) and Methodists all reject the language of transsubstantiation but they also all teach that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not merely symbolic; it is real.

There are Christian traditions that teach that the Eucharist is purely symbolic ("the Zwinglian view") but they're a fairly small minority (especially in Ireland).

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924535#Comment_121924535

Where did I say that it ever did mean representational? I mean, I've repeatedly pointed out that representational/symbolic wasn't the view.

I was quoting the previous poster, who used that word. I'm pointing out that the church could have said that, but they actively went an entirely different way, and they are more than a little stubborn.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924604#Comment_121924604

Well, they could have said that the eucharist was made of green cheese, but that wasn't what they believed. Not sure that that makes them "stubborn".

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924607#Comment_121924607

I'm not suggesting they should come out and say that. I was replying to the poster that asked "why don't they just say it's representational".

...and I said they the catholic church is stubborn - a stand alone statement. Nothing about "because they won't change their belief" tacked on. I'd have thought you were above a silly strawman like that. 😏

we aren't short of examples of that stubbornness.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924614#Comment_121924614

I'm pointing out that the church could have said that, but they actively went an entirely different way, and they are more than a little stubborn.

To be fair, I think I could be forgiven for forming the impression that your statement that the Catholic Church is stubborn was in some vague way connected to your statement that it could have said the eucharist was representational, but said something else instead.

magicbastarder

rather coincidentally, i was listening to the latest blindboy podcast yesterday, and transsubstantiation vs. consubstantiation featured heavily (there was quite a bit about breasts and rocket launchers too).

Hotblack Desiato

Maybe he's an A&A lurker 😶

Hotblack Desiato

@Mellor the RCC are not know for changing their view

They no longer maintain that it is heresy to state that the earth revolves around the sun. Give 'em time 😊

robindch

@Mellor, might makes sense [...] to say that it means "representational". But that was a option 400 years ago, and the RCC are not know for changing their view.

The RCC may not be known for changing their views, but they certainly do change their views - they just keep quiet about it by, for example, publishing their rule updates in Latin so nobody can understand the originals. The RCC wouldn't have promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility, in faith and morals, if it didn't believe that the pope wasn't going to update the rules regarding faith or morals from time to time.

To pick but one about-face, the RCC's current ban on abortion dates from as late as 1869 when Pope Pius IX issued his Apostolicae Sedis, which rescinded an exception included by Gregory XIV in the sixteenth century which allowed abortion up to the 24th week. And no doubt Gregory's exception changed an earlier rule and so on.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924775#Comment_121924775

It was pretty much backwards logic. Saying X was an effect of Y doesn’t imply it’s also a cause. Poor comprehension or an intentional strawman are two obvious explanations - I figure the latter was more likely.

If a “fat man” sits on a chair and the chair breaks. It’s fair to that the chair broke because he was fat.

But it’s pretty illogical to reverse that and say he’s fat because the chair broke. He is fat regardless, the chair breaking or not does not contribute to that.

The RCC is stubborn. That is a fact in itself. It would be easy imo to update interpretations without loosing the intent at its core. But doesn’t affect me either way.

FWIW I don’t think “buts that’s not their belief” argument gets very far. These “beliefs” are what people are told to believe. Those instructions can and do change, albeit with extreme delay.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121925444#Comment_121925444

Funnily enough that was the example that came to mind. Poor Copernicus and especially Galileo got the raw end in 1600s. But they eventually admitted they got it wrong…shame it wasn’t until 1992 🤣🤣🤣.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121927408#Comment_121927408

At no point did I suggest they were unable to change. The opposite in fact. I’m pointing out the view can change but there is extreme reluctance to do so. To the point of ridiculousness.

Like in 2000, they apologised for the sack of Constantinople, in 1203.

Or the Galileo example above. An inquisition declared him a heretic in 1616. And as late at 1990, the church (current pope iirc) stated the decision was just. But sure in 1992, after a 13 year investigation, acknowledged Galileo was right. 👏

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121924535#Comment_121924535

Never really got why those who aren't members of the Catholic tradition get hung up on this one. Catholicism is a belief system that has never fully aligned with contemporary scientific understanding of the physical universe. While explanations of transubstantiation based on a metaphysical understanding of the term resolves the everyday case, there is still an allowance for exceptional cases which are deemed miraculous as mentioned in this article. The line between metaphysical reality and symbolism may well exist for the faithful, or not as the case may be. For those of that don't believe in gods and the supernatural, it is just another quirky part of someone else's religious belief system. My opinion is let them at it, unless of course they try to preach it to me and mine uninvited, at which point it seems reasonable to explain in detail why I find the belief system entirely preposterous.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121929661#Comment_121929661

It just occurred to me that Lourdes has done very well from their historic miracle. Now I am not saying that people involved faked it. But that their belief/faith is so strong that they are susceptible to believing.

1985 was Ireland's year of the moving statues

https://www.rte.ie/radio/doconone/646048-radio-documentary-the-summer-of-the-moving-statues

I was talking to a fella from Cork years ago who knew the woman who claimed have seen the statue moved. Apparently she had a lot of tragedy in her life he said. So from that I took that she was looking for solace or some sort of sign.

I am not sure that many such people exist in Ireland today who would turn to religion like that. I assume they go to support groups, yoga, meditation, medical intervention etc. It would be put under the umbrella of "mental health" issues/well being. When I think of it years ago that was a function of parish priests etc to provide solace for troubled souls, long before the buzzword "mental health" became popular.

Given that fact I am not sure that faking a calling would be as lucrative, or have the same aura/social standing as it once had. Maybe it would be far better to call yourself a "mental health advocate" "mental health activist" rather than a man of God with a "calling".

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121930902#Comment_121930902

I think there will always be people out there looking for something to believe in, for various reasons, and others who are willing to meet that need. I think anything that provides a sense of community for people is often very beneficial to them, including those of sincere religious belief. You also have those that prey on those in a weak position to drag them into the fold to their detriment, with the likes of Scientology coming to mind.

Slightly off topic, but with regards to mental health The Mental State of the World in 2023 makes for a fascinating read, listing the UK as the 2nd most miserable place in the world to live in with Ireland not that far behind. I'd agree that the parish priest would have acted as someone you could seek counsel with for a range of personal problems in times past and as a society we're lacking in filling the gap left here with the decline of the church. Loneliness is also a huge problem for society across many age groups. Becoming a therapist, counselor or mental health advocate is in my opinion playing a valuable role in society. It can be a tough call at times for those that do.

Hotblack Desiato

@gormdubhgorm I am not sure that many such people exist in Ireland today who would turn to religion like that.

There are still some about - remember the 'miracle' of the tree stump from a few years back?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/holy-image-in-stump-is-virgin-on-the-miraculous/26549535.html

(It was actually fifteen years ago. Yikes.)

NIMAN

Sometimes the stupidity of some people would baffle you.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121931051#Comment_121931051

that report runs contrary to the usual ones which claim ireland is usually near the top for happiness; e.g.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world

which places us 17th out of 143.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121933319#Comment_121933319

Looks like the two studies use some very different metrics as predictors of happiness / mental health. The report you link states the following;

Happiness rankings are determined by analyzing comprehensive Gallup polling data from 149 countries in six particular categories: gross domestic product per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom to make your own life choices, generosity of the general population, and perceptions of internal and external corruption levels.

Which includes GDP per capita as the first noted predictor of happiness. The report I linked concludes wealth doesn't lead the improved mental health, quite the opposite in fact

As mental wellbeing has remained largely static across the world since 2021, so too have the rankings of countries. At the top of the rankings are many Latin American and African countries while much of the core Anglosphere ranks in the bottom quartile. With national wealth indicators such as per capita GDP negatively correlated with average mental wellbeing scores (see our 2021 report), this year we have made substantial progress in our understanding of why this is so. Two key findings published in Rapid Reports in 2023 show that younger age of first smartphone ownership and ultra-processed food consumption are two major contributors to our mental health challenges. 

I'd need to read way more around both reports here to understand this better. That said, the assertion that giving smart phones to kids from a young age adds to their stress levels seems to agree with my experience as a parent. A quick google around the topic suggests there are numerous studies that would back this up.

magicbastarder

Huh, I hadn't spotted that GDP reference. Instant red flag in general about it being a general factor, added to Ireland's not very normal relationship with GDP.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121934085#Comment_121934085

Yep, the other major problem with using GDP per capita as measure of happiness of individuals as it assumes similar distribution of wealth across populations between countries being assessed and over time between studies. Unless you're a fan of trickle down economics, to be a useful statistic in this context, GDP would need to be corrected for concentration and distribution of wealth.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121935969#Comment_121935969

Well, the main problem is that GDP isn't a measure of happiness; it's a measure of productivity. These are two wildly differing concepts. I don't think that problem is addressed by correcting our GDP measure for income or wealth inequality.

We could, of course, hypothesise that there is some correlation between productivity and happiness. But we can't evaluate the hypothesis, or measure the nature or extent of any correlation, unless we have some way of measuring happiness that doesn't depend on GDP.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121935985#Comment_121935985

I agree entirely. My previous post was really just pointing out that if productivity was related to happiness, it would need to be measured on an individual rather than national basis. I'd speculate that financial worries and poverty are sources of mental stress but that once you're fed and housed, wealth becomes a relative measure between a person and those they interact with on a daily basis. e.g. a monk in a Buddhist temple might have zero income or fixed assets while also having no money worries or related stress. They might also benefit mentally from being a productive part of their community. The factors for mental well-being listed in the report I linked are Social Self, Mood & Outlook, Adaptability & Resilience, Drive & Motivation, Cognition and Mind-Body Connection. These seem reasonable to me.

magicbastarder

i remember a good friend mentally checking out of LC economics very early on when the teacher told us about the 'happiness = consumption / desire' formulation. though i believe now it was intended as tongue-in-cheek, it was not presented to us in class as such.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121935985#Comment_121935985

In the case of Ireland, one could argue that GDP is largely a measure of the productivity of people in east Asia. 🤔

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121936232#Comment_121936232

The economics teachers will probably end up on the same spaceship as the telephone sanitizers and hairdressers 😁

NIMAN

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121948135#Comment_121948135

Of course everyone is entitled to believe what they wanna believe , but seeing the face of christ in a piece of toast is just silly imho.

I'd like to think if there is going to be a 2nd coming, toast isn't how he's going to appear.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121936232#Comment_121936232

Your teacher clearly hadn't heard of the n+1 bicycle rule ;) Marketing has now evolved to such as stage where the euphoria experienced by the fix of a whim purchase for a consumer junkie is fleetingly brief and rapidly diminishing with respect to time as that next object of desire looms. Alas, between amazon.com, uber eats and ubiquitous free porn, desire just isn't what it used to be. The consumer has long since become the consumed and is increasingly considered to be the principal product by big business.

robindch

The consumer has long since become the consumed and is increasingly considered to be the principal product by big business.

"If you're not sure what the product is, then you're the product"