Very religious equals not very Christian.

endacl · 06-11-2012 02:19AM

Is 'cnuts' short for 'coconuts'? I'm still rather new to this.

Jimminy Mc Fukhead · 06-11-2012 02:19AM

Lando Griffin wrote: »

few elderly people who knew all the mass prayers and responses and all the songs.

You should have responded in all the right places as well. Except as you don't know the words you use meaningless, random utterances. At first subtle and blending in. Then as the mas progresses becoming louder and louder and more creative incorporating beeps, clicks, pseudo-foreign-language, animal noises and jimmy saville impressions.

EZ24GET · 06-11-2012 02:25AM

Christians follow the teachings of Christ and strive to do as He would. There are countless folks filling the pews that have very little to do with desiring to follow Christ.

endacl · 06-11-2012 02:25AM

Jimminy Mc Fukhead wrote: »

You should have responded in all the right places as well. Except as you don't know the words you use meaningless, random utterances. At first subtle and blending in. Then as the mas progresses becoming louder and louder and more creative incorporating beeps, clicks, pseudo-foreign-language, animal noises and jimmy saville impressions.

Or you could.....

http://http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_watson/5491286976/

dttq · 06-11-2012 02:26AM

Lando Griffin wrote: »

I went to mass on Sunday mainly because one of the little ones has started school and is learning about God etc.
We sat in front a few elderly people who knew all the mass prayers and responses and all the songs. The old lady had her handbag and hat on the bench that the OH was to be seated and wouldn't move them even after a few hints. We ended up virtually sitting on top of each other. As time ambled along my youngest a baby of a year and a half starting getting restless and was laughing and smiling at the people behind. I looked round and the gent gave me a scornful look shaking his head.
As more mass went by the older child quietly went up the aisle generflected and sat down again. I heard the old lady tut and pfftt every time the children made some noises.
On our way up to communion the old lady blocked our way and stood there with a face like a wrench as if say how dare we take her place before God.
I found these people very unnearving with their prayers and masses and not a bit of Christian value in them. They are through first to give out about young people not going to mass and when we do go make us unwelcome.
IMO; the more religious someone is the less Christian values they pocess.

Discuss.

I am actually going to go back next Sunday and sit in their seat just to rise them.

Next time leave the kids at home, eat some beans on toast, a few boiled eggs and a few pints of guinness and make sure to sit in front of the aul wan in question. Should be hillarious.

nice_very · 06-11-2012 02:34AM

Lando Griffin wrote: »

I went to mass on Sunday mainly because one of the little ones has started school and is learning about God etc..

you need to maybe rethink the education of your children

swimming in a sea · 06-11-2012 08:53AM

You should try maybe going to one of the smaller Christian churches in Ireland, you'd get a great welcome. They'd be just glad you've come, catholic church seem to only hold it against you for not attending before.

My cousin is in Toronto, was down on his luck, like a lot he said he'd go to mass. Just shows he was not used to church as he went to a Presbyterian church, he said it was a great sermon and was introduced to the minister and felt very welcome.

So I'd say treat the church like a restaurant, if you don't feel welcome then vote with your feet, try a different church.

smash · 06-11-2012 09:07AM

Lando Griffin wrote: »

I went to mass on Sunday mainly because one of the little ones has started school and is learning about God etc.

Are you religious yourself? If not, this is like your child learning about the holacost and bringing them out to gas some Jews. They can learn without being in the thick of it.

btard · 06-11-2012 09:24AM

Maybe you should have taken the hint OP. The handbag/hat was there for a reason. The regulars didn't want some inconsiderate day trippers with noisy kids sitting on top of them. Seems reasonable to me.

gobnaitolunacy · 06-11-2012 09:26AM

Only one thing worse than kids at mass, that's kids in a pub.

gbee · 06-11-2012 09:35AM

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Discuss.

Missed another lecture then? Phuuuuffffft.

Ghost Buster · 06-11-2012 09:38AM

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Here we go again

Indeed. This is boards/AH where people talk about stuff. Whats your point?

Siuin · 06-11-2012 09:53AM

smash wrote: »

Are you religious yourself? If not, this is like your child learning about the holacost and bringing them out to gas some Jews. They can learn without being in the thick of it.

That's got to be one of the most stupid analogies I've heard in a long time.

Min · 06-11-2012 09:55AM

Go to mass for the sake of the mass, it is not a social experiment on the failings on some human beings whom you chose to sit beside.

Ush1 · 06-11-2012 10:08AM

She was just letting you know that children are terrible creatures and life is not supposed to be enjoyable.

philologos · 06-11-2012 10:20AM

Lando Griffin wrote: »

I went to mass on Sunday mainly because one of the little ones has started school and is learning about God etc.
We sat in front a few elderly people who knew all the mass prayers and responses and all the songs. The old lady had her handbag and hat on the bench that the OH was to be seated and wouldn't move them even after a few hints. We ended up virtually sitting on top of each other. As time ambled along my youngest a baby of a year and a half starting getting restless and was laughing and smiling at the people behind. I looked round and the gent gave me a scornful look shaking his head.
As more mass went by the older child quietly went up the aisle generflected and sat down again. I heard the old lady tut and pfftt every time the children made some noises.
On our way up to communion the old lady blocked our way and stood there with a face like a wrench as if say how dare we take her place before God.
I found these people very unnearving with their prayers and masses and not a bit of Christian value in them. They are through first to give out about young people not going to mass and when we do go make us unwelcome.
IMO; the more religious someone is the less Christian values they pocess.

Discuss.

I am actually going to go back next Sunday and sit in their seat just to rise them.

It depends what you mean by religious. One of the reasons I don't use that word as a Christian is because it denotes a heavy attachment to ritual and a heavy trust in it over Jesus. I think you're right the more blind and unquestioning we are in respect to ritual the less we consider and trust in Jesus and His saving death on the cross and His Resurrection. God calls us to Himself and to be absolutely consumed in the Gospel. These rituals that people blindly follow are smokes screens. Ritual is only useful when people are reminded of God's word. See Matthew 15:1-9, Matthew 23:1-36. Jesus would agree.

philologos · 06-11-2012 10:25AM

Sofaspud wrote: »

Or maybe they read gospels that were omitted from the bible, where Jesus killed a kid for bumping into him.

I notice you conveniently left out that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was written a lot longer than a lifetime after Jesus. Therefore it's very unlikely to be based on eyewitness testimony and is unreliable.

Sonics2k · 06-11-2012 10:42AM

philologos wrote: »

I notice you conveniently left out that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was written a lot longer than a lifetime after Jesus. Therefore it's very unlikely to be based on eyewitness testimony and is unreliable.

You mean like all the other Gospels? But you take them seriously.

philologos · 06-11-2012 10:52AM

Sonics2k wrote: »

You mean like all the other Gospels? But you take them seriously.

No the other gospels were written within 70 years of the events that they describe happening. The very first we have are from Paul a convert to Christianity. Galatians and 1 Corinthians are dated to roughly 55AD. The first Gospel was written 60AD the last in 90AD. Jesus was crucified and resurrected in 33AD.

Much much better than mid to late second century onwards. The New Testament is unparalleled for authenticity in the ancient world. See my Why trust the Bible links in my signature.

Sofaspud · 06-11-2012 11:57AM

philologos wrote: »

No the other gospels were written within 70 years of the events that they describe happening. The very first we have are from Paul a convert to Christianity. Galatians and 1 Corinthians are dated to roughly 55AD. The first Gospel was written 60AD the last in 90AD. Jesus was crucified and resurrected in 33AD.

Much much better than mid to late second century onwards. The New Testament is unparalleled for authenticity in the ancient world. See my Why trust the Bible links in my signature.

So the first ones were written about 25 years after the events?
Eyewitness testimony in general is unreliable, but throw in that amount of time and memories completely skew and / or embellish what originally happened.

Jesus killing children for being a bit clumsy is no more of a folk tale than Jesus dying on a cross, so on topic, the only reason the ladies in the church didn't act very christian is that they let the kids who annoyed them live.

philologos · 06-11-2012 12:30PM

Eyewitness testimony is good enough for court. By the by the fundamental difference is time and detail. The Gospels were written and circulated while eyewitnesses were alive. If the Gospel was a lie it would have been disproven in the first century. People would have sought the named witnesses and shown it to be a load of tripe. The Romans would have loved to disprove it.

In Galatians we have a timeline of Paul's life from his conversion to his writing of Galatians. If you subtract the years from 54AD you'll start to see not only was Paul converted a mere few years after Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension but that he heard the same Gospel as in the texts that came later.

I.E The Gospel was the same since Jesus ascended.

Please actually read those two links in my signature.

Leftist · 06-11-2012 12:37PM

philologos wrote: »

Eyewitness testimony is good enough for court. By the by the fundamental difference is time and detail. The Gospels were written and circulated while eyewitnesses were alive. If the Gospel was a lie it would have been disproven in the first century. People would have sought the named witnesses and shown it to be a load of tripe. The Romans would have loved to disprove it.

In Galatians we have a timeline of Paul's life from his conversion to his writing of Galatians. If you subtract the years from 54AD you'll start to see not only was Paul converted a mere few years after Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension but that he heard the same Gospel as in the texts that came later.

I.E The Gospel was the same since Jesus ascended.

Please actually read those two links in my signature.

eye witness testimony from a cult that it's leading member rose from the dead would be good enough in court? nope.

How could the romans prove that a miracle only the cult members were present for was a lie?

You can't prove Mohammed wasn't a prophet, does that make him a prophet?

it's all rubbish.

philologos · 06-11-2012 12:41PM

Leftist wrote: »

eye witness testimony from a cult that it's leading member rose from the dead would be good enough in court? nope.

How could the romans prove that a miracle only the cult members were present for was a lie?

You can't prove Mohammed wasn't a prophet, does that make him a prophet?

it's all rubbish.

From a cult? The Romans could have gone to the specific people, regions and areas and pored over the testimony and have disproven it in a heartbeat.

Assuming something to be false for no good reason isn't the most rational. I don't want this to be true so I won't look at the evidence is what it sounds like.

Leftist · 06-11-2012 12:49PM

philologos wrote: »

From a cult? The Romans could have gone to the specific people, regions and areas and pored over the testimony and have disproven it in a heartbeat.

Assuming something to be false for no good reason isn't the most rational. I don't want this to be true so I won't look at the evidence is what it sounds like.

the romans didn't exactly embrace it right away now did they? christianity took 300 years to become adopted by rome.

lets not engage in fantasy.

and remember this wasn't exactly the enlightened period for education and rationality.

assuming something to be false because it defies the laws of physics is far more logical than assuming it is true because a handful of loyal followers to a messaniac cult figure suggest it to be true, with zero evidence.

barbiegirl · 06-11-2012 12:58PM

Why do we have to keep attacking one another in relation to religion. If you believe in the word of Christ and the New Testament, and do your best to live by the key message "Treat others as you would like to be treated", then what issue has anyone got with that. Your faith and religion are yours and to be called constantly an idiot for it is very insulting.
If you don't believe and live your life only by what you can see and prove, then that is your business and why should anyone attack you for that.
The kind of intolerence to both sides shown on these countless threads is unChristian on the faith side and reminiscent of some of the worse days of religion, such as the inquisition, on the non-faith side "we all must believe the same and if we don't then those people are subject to ridicule and oppression".
Faith or lack of it is a personal thing. Everyone should be free to express their beliefs or not without fearing anyone elses reaction. It's called respect for one another. Something that both sides should subscribe to.
I grew up in a good parish, with an excellent parish priest who in his very elderly years is still much loved by the community. The biggest teaching throughout our formative years was respect for others. The aforementioned "treat others as you would like them to treat you". That if you do your best to do this, and nothing else, during your time then you will have lived a good life. I think this has made me a better person than I might otherwise have been. This teaching was of course backed by my parents and their example.
OP The old biddies are not being Christian, they are stuck in ruts and have stopped listening to any of the teachings and are symptomatic of where the church has gone wrong. Kids are kids, the mass is a communal experience for the whole community including kids. I find ignoring such people gives me more satisfaction than doing anything else.

smash · 06-11-2012 01:04PM

Siuin wrote: »

That's got to be one of the most stupid analogies I've heard in a long time.

No it's not. Religions are dangerous and if you don't believe or get involved yourself then why would you get your kids involved just because they're learning about it in school?

Siuin · 06-11-2012 02:19PM

smash wrote: »

No it's not. Religions are dangerous and if you don't believe or get involved yourself then why would you get your kids involved just because they're learning about it in school?

How on earth did you need to invoke the Holocaust in order to make that point? Ridiculous analogy

AnonoBoy · 06-11-2012 02:24PM

Don't mess with old women in church. They know too much.

When they get to that age they don't need the operator anymore, they've got a direct line!

Zebra3 · 06-11-2012 03:12PM

Lando Griffin wrote: »

I went to mass on Sunday mainly because one of the little ones has started school and is learning about God etc.

Lando Griffin wrote: »

But Im not religious.

If you're not religious why have you got your kid learning that crap?

And what do you think a young child will learn from mass?

95% of it is just the same crap repeated every week.

smash · 06-11-2012 03:14PM

Siuin wrote: »

How on earth did you need to invoke the Holocaust in order to make that point? Ridiculous analogy

what... too soon?

Very religious equals not very Christian.

Comments