Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

CramCycle · 13-01-2014 04:15PM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Yet they then turn around and say I want my children taught the church's teachings and I want them taught it in school (because I couldn't be arsed doing it myself probably!?

I imagine proximity and convenience have more to do with it than anything else. all very well judging these parents but when the only other option is an additional 45+minutes drive, then I can say that I understand even if I do not agree.

Are these people hypocrites or nutters or both???

They are just parents trying to find a functional way to have thier kids educated to a state standard, it is hardly the fault of the parents if a Catholic school is their only option, the blame in this regard lies squarely with both the state and the community (ie if the community where opposed, the state would actually do something).

I Heart Internet · 13-01-2014 04:53PM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I can't understand why people who show no support for the Catholic church:

Don't go to mass, confession, don't believe/understand transubstantiation
Don't ally with the church's teachings on abortion, contaception, divorce, homosexuality
Don't really believe that Jesus is a god.

Yet they then turn around and say I want my children taught the church's teachings and I want them taught it in school (because I couldn't be arsed doing it myself probably!?)

Are these people hypocrites or nutters or both???

I think you're "over-egging" the pudding there. Some people might have zero practical belief in the the teachings of the church but still consider themselves "catholic".

Many others (probably most....some of my own family amongst them) have some vague (but real and important to them) idea that they believe in God, are Christian (follow the broad message of Jesus) and are positively disposed to the nicer/easy aspects of the catholic church. Those people are free to consider themselves Catholics if they wish.

What comes through time and time again on this thread is the notion of "judging people". There is a strong line that if people don't thick all of the "catholic boxes" that people have in their heads, they should not be allowed call themselves catholics. Nonsense.

In this sense, some people on here would have lots in common with the most severe/fundamentalist/judgemental christians/catholics who say it's "all or nothing".

There are a lot of "bad catholics" - me amongst them. That doesn't mean we cease being catholics.

smacl · 13-01-2014 06:14PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There are a lot of "bad catholics" - me amongst them. That doesn't mean we cease being catholics.

Seems reasonable, which begs the question why so many decent Irish folks that would have been 'good Catholics' just a couple of decades back are now 'bad Catholics', and what exactly is the difference? At a guess the atrocities committed by members the hierarchy, along with a bigoted morality and sexual repressiveness that harks back to the dark ages, is no more palatable to a modern Catholic than any other fair minded member of a modern society. At the same time, if you've been promised immortality from a young age, I'd guess an atheists notion of death could be a difficult concept to take on board. So the 'bad catholic' charts their own course through this mess, in the hope of being allowed in upstairs at the end of the journey.

Do you then raise your kids as 'bad Catholics', and if so if that is their starting point, does each generation become 'worse Catholics', until you're basically left with more of a watered down tradition than a religion?

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 06:23PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, far be it from me to defend the RCC against fairly well-grounded accusations of pointlessness and illogic in its rules... They may not make sense, and it's not necessarily something that non-prelates have to take seriously, but they are free to make their own rules, for their own purposes.

The church would regard those rules as disciplinary criteria, rather than grounds for removing membership. Even excommunication, which in theory doesn't even prevent one from attending mass, receiving pastoral outreach, and can be remitted at any later time, isn't normally even something that occurs as a matter of course. (There are assorted grounds for "automatic" excommunication, but if no-one actually bothers to notice someone has "automatically" excommunicated themselves, even that's not necessarily a given in practice, unless you're buying into the "eyes of eternity" angle on things.)

And why is it like this? Because they would decimate their ranks if they actually held their members to the criteria they purport to uphold. Like I've said before, if it doesn't really matter what rules a catholic follows or what doctrine they actually believe, why not just bless the clouds and baptise the entire planet?

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 06:25PM

Piliger wrote: »

So you admit. There is actually nowhere where the catholic church says you have to do x, y and z or else you are not a catholic. That is the reality of the situation. People choose their religion. It may drive you crazy ... and it seems evident that it does ... but it's true. And you not liking it, and you thinking you can change it makes no difference. It is how it is and that's the way it will stay.

No, I admit that the church has very explicit rules on what you have to do in order to be a catholic (the catechism) and that they are very ambiguous about whether someone can call themselves a catholic if they don't follow them so as not to decimate their ranks

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 06:26PM

Piliger wrote: »

Can you believe that you actually wrote that ?

Yes, clearly. Can you not understand what I wrote?

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 06:45PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

First of all it would give your argument more credibility if you understood the source you are providing. It was commissioned by the Bishop's Conference; not carried out by them. Also, it was not a survey of Catholics in the Republic it was a survey of people in the island of Ireland.

Ok on the first point (not that I see what difference it makes), but the second point is wrong, in relation to the point I was making about the graph. The graph I have in my post only concerns catholics in the Republic of Ireland (hence the label: Belief in ... Base: Catholics in R of Ireland).

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Secondly, for someone who likes to poke holes in surveys you have missed the contradictions contained in this one. Page 14 gives a far more accurate number for the number of Catholics who don't believe in Go, seeing as it's not a Yes/No question.

You're a card, BB. The survey on page 14 has 16.7% (12 + 4.7) catholics in the republic of Ireland as not believing in god (this is aside from the 42.4% who don't believe in a personal god, which I'm pretty sure is an important aspect of god according to catholicism). This makes you argument worse, not better. The variation in both graphs is also bad for your argument as it shows how the way you ask a question can change the answer, and it can change what implications we are allowed make with the results.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This more accurate number is 4.7% Why do you think anyone, including yourself, would take a less accurate reflection of the truth?

How is the page 12 graph a less accurate reflection of the truth? Also, where are you getting 4.7% from? The graph on page 14 gives 16.7% (12% don't know + 4.7% explicitly don't believe) as the percentage of catholics who do not believe in god.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Also, it doesn't give the margin of error, but I've worked it out at 3.1% which leaves us with potentially 1.6% or 150 people of Catholics surveyed in this poll not believing in God.

Not exactly census shattering information is it?

Even accepting all your faulty reading and all your faulty maths, this still debunks all the arguments defending the census so far. Even taking that 1.6% at face value (that's not how percentage error works btw), that still implies 1.6% of the catholics in the country as not believing in god. Unless, that is, you want to suggest that this random survey organised for the catholic bishops conference somehow managed to find the only catholics in Ireland who dont believe in god.

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 06:48PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Has anyone suggested an alternative, verifiable and non-subjective way of establishing the number of Christians that doesn't involve the census?

"Which religious group (if any) best reflects your religious beliefs and opinions on issues like abortion, gay marriage, access to contraception etc."

That's based on the assumption that that is why the question is asked.

Piliger · 13-01-2014 06:51PM

Nodin wrote: »

The catechism has the relevant information on mass etc.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-are-the-necessary-minimum-requirements-for-catholics

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/precepts-of-the-catholic-church.html

Marriage
http://catholicweddinghelp.com/questions/rules-requirements.htm

Sex
http://ccgaction.org/index.php?q=family/protectmarriage/principles/CatholicSexualEthics

Wow ... I was right again ! Not a single meaningful significant reference to where the pope or anyone in the Vatican says this.

Lots of references don't add up to anything except a load of references.

Piliger · 13-01-2014 06:57PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What if you just can't help yourself? Is it a crime to fill out a census form with a "wrong" answer? (Serious question)

Has anyone suggested an alternative, verifiable and non-subjective way of establishing the number of Christians that doesn't involve the census?

In both of my former in-laws houses in the west of ireland the census is filled in by the head of the household when everyone is around and WOE BETIDE anyone in the family who would suggest they were not a full blooded catholic. This is a widespread thing across the country. And because the census is the most accurate and most respected source of the data, this problem will remain for quite a while yet.

Piliger · 13-01-2014 07:00PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think you're "over-egging" the pudding there. Some people might have zero practical belief in the the teachings of the church but still consider themselves "catholic".

Many others (probably most....some of my own family amongst them) have some vague (but real and important to them) idea that they believe in God, are Christian (follow the broad message of Jesus) and are positively disposed to the nicer/easy aspects of the catholic church. Those people are free to consider themselves Catholics if they wish.

What comes through time and time again on this thread is the notion of "judging people". There is a strong line that if people don't thick all of the "catholic boxes" that people have in their heads, they should not be allowed call themselves catholics. Nonsense.

In this sense, some people on here would have lots in common with the most severe/fundamentalist/judgemental christians/catholics who say it's "all or nothing".

There are a lot of "bad catholics" - me amongst them. That doesn't mean we cease being catholics.

As an atheist who lived as a catholic for 17/18 years I know exactly how this works. Being a catholic is not about being in a "club". People who are fixated with this club thing and rules thing just do not get it, and to be honest they do not even want to get it. They seem to see this as a cause for Atheists to follow. Well it's not.
You can be a real catholic and not partake of any of these ceremonies and disagree with lots of the 'modern' tennets of the church. The church doesn't set the rules. The people set the rules. If they feel catholic ans want to call themselves catholic then catholic they are. That is the way it is.

Piliger · 13-01-2014 07:03PM

smacl wrote: »

Do you then raise your kids as 'bad Catholics', and if so if that is their starting point, does each generation become 'worse Catholics', until you're basically left with more of a watered down tradition than a religion?

I don't like this 'bad' terminology despite being an Atheist. However I actually think what you say is how it often is. Families drift .... they accept less and less of the catholic principles and stop going to ceremonies except marriages and funerals ... then the next generation start from there and 'their' children become Atheists. Makes a lot of logical sense as well ... within the envelope of the amount of logic one can expect from theists

Piliger · 13-01-2014 07:05PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I admit that the church has very explicit rules on what you have to do in order to be a catholic (the catechism) and that they are very ambiguous about whether someone can call themselves a catholic if they don't follow them so as not to decimate their ranks

And yet no one can show us where these rules are set out. As I said earlier there is no where anyone has referenced to where the pope or the vatican has stated a set of rules where if you do not stick to these rules, you are no longer a catholic. No where.

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 07:56PM

Piliger wrote: »

And yet no one can show us where these rules are set out. As I said earlier there is no where anyone has referenced to where the pope or the vatican has stated a set of rules where if you do not stick to these rules, you are no longer a catholic. No where.

People have done so repeatedly, its all in the catechism of RCC. Specific sections and sentences have even by quoted by people already to support the specific rules they referenced in their posts. To repeatedly say that no has done so is lying, plain and simple.

Nodin · 13-01-2014 07:59PM

Piliger wrote: »

Wow ... I was right again ! Not a single meaningful significant reference to where the pope or anyone in the Vatican says this.

Lots of references don't add up to anything except a load of references.

I'd suggest that you stop being obtuse. The teachings of the church are contained - rather famously - in the approved catechism.

Nodin · 13-01-2014 08:00PM

Piliger wrote: »

As an atheist who lived as a catholic for 17/18 years I know exactly how this works. Being a catholic is not about being in a "club". People who are fixated with this club thing and rules thing just do not get it, and to be honest they do not even want to get it. They seem to see this as a cause for Atheists to follow. Well it's not.
You can be a real catholic and not partake of any of these ceremonies and disagree with lots of the 'modern' tennets of the church. The church doesn't set the rules. The people set the rules. If they feel catholic ans want to call themselves catholic then catholic they are. That is the way it is.

You seem to have no understanding of how this works at all. The church sets the rules, the laity have little if any influence. The RC is well known for this hierarchical dogmatic structure.

Piliger · 13-01-2014 08:13PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People have done so repeatedly, its all in the catechism of RCC. Specific sections and sentences have even by quoted by people already to support the specific rules they referenced in their posts. To repeatedly say that no has done so is lying, plain and simple.

Really ? You are going to start calling me a liar now ?

yet you offer not one single reference ?

Piliger · 13-01-2014 08:14PM

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest that you stop being obtuse. The teachings of the church are contained - rather famously - in the approved catechism.

Obtuse ? :rolleyes: I am being direct and crystal clear. if there is such a statement by the pope of the vatican, please quote it.

Piliger · 13-01-2014 08:14PM

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to have no understanding of how this works at all. The church sets the rules, the laity have little if any influence. The RC is well known for this hierarchical dogmatic structure.

Yet none of you can quote any such statement by the pope or the vatican. Or even in the current catechism.

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 08:21PM

Piliger wrote: »

Really ? You are going to start calling me a liar now ?

yet you offer not one single reference ?

Yes, I will call you a liar and if you continue to lie then I will report you.The catechism has been referenced many (dozens) of times in this thread, I even included a link in the post you just quoted. My patience for your nonsense wears thin.

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 08:24PM

Piliger wrote: »

Yet none of you can quote any such statement by the pope or the vatican. Or even in the current catechism.

Oh, so now you accept the catechism as reference :rolleyes:?
Where in anything the Catholic Church has ever said or written is there anything that says that the church does not make the rules? Or that its followers can believe what they want or have any say?

AerynSun · 13-01-2014 08:30PM

Why is it that some of the posters here can't seem to appreciate that where Catholicism is concerned, there is a formal 'ecclesial reality' and then there is the lived 'pastoral reality' of the people in the pews? These two realities are sometimes at huge variance with each other. If anything, the 'ecclesial reality' is less real than the 'pastoral reality', because the 'ecclesial reality' is an ideal, while the 'pastoral reality' is the actual case.

And yet the ones who want to believe that the 'ecclesial reality' is (and should be!) the whole story, are calling people who have some experience of the 'pastoral reality' liars because the truth makes them uncomfortable?

Insisting that every Catholic alive needs to 'get with the program' and accept the absolute truth of the 'ecclesial reality' and deny the existence of the 'pastoral reality' is kinda what the boys in the hierarchy do... and it's amusing to me that the RCC's 'enemies' are pushing that agenda even more vehemently than the most conservative RCC henchmen?

IMO, you can quote the formal documents all you want, it doesn't make the truth go away.

:rolleyes:

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 08:40PM

AerynSun wrote: »

IMO, you can quote the formal documents all you want, it doesn't make the truth go away.

:rolleyes:

So we can quote all the formal church documents going back years, based on doctrine going back centuries, but that doesn't debunk the baseless opinions of the posters here who give no evidence to support their own claims?

Do you people even listen to what you are saying?

Nodin · 13-01-2014 09:25PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Why is it that some of the posters here can't seem to appreciate that where Catholicism is concerned, there is a formal 'ecclesial reality' and then there is the lived 'pastoral reality' of the people in the pews? These two realities are sometimes at huge variance with each other. If anything, the 'ecclesial reality' is less real than the 'pastoral reality', because the 'ecclesial reality' is an ideal, while the 'pastoral reality' is the actual case.

..........

This is well known. However things are fairly rigid where the RC is concerned and they make no allowances, whatever the facts on the ground.

Brown Bomber · 13-01-2014 10:06PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok on the first point (not that I see what difference it makes), but the second point is wrong, in relation to the point I was making about the graph. The graph I have in my post only concerns catholics in the Republic of Ireland (hence the label: Belief in ... Base: Catholics in R of Ireland).

You're a card, BB. The survey on page 14 has 16.7% (12 + 4.7) catholics in the republic of Ireland as not believing in god (this is aside from the 42.4% who don't believe in a personal god, which I'm pretty sure is an important aspect of god according to catholicism). This makes you argument worse, not better. The variation in both graphs is also bad for your argument as it shows how the way you ask a question can change the answer, and it can change what implications we are allowed make with the results.

How is the page 12 graph a less accurate reflection of the truth? Also, where are you getting 4.7% from? The graph on page 14 gives 16.7% (12% don't know + 4.7% explicitly don't believe) as the percentage of catholics who do not believe in god.

Even accepting all your faulty reading and all your faulty maths, this still debunks all the arguments defending the census so far. Even taking that 1.6% at face value (that's not how percentage error works btw), that still implies 1.6% of the catholics in the country as not believing in god. Unless, that is, you want to suggest that this random survey organised for the catholic bishops conference somehow managed to find the only catholics in Ireland who dont believe in god.

This just gets better and better.

Before we go any further can we clarify that to you when someone answers "don't know what to think", to the question "Do you believe in God?" it means "No".

don't-know
noun
unpunctuated: dont-know; noun: don't-know; plural noun: don't-knows; noun: don'tknow; plural noun: don'tknows
1.
a person who disclaims knowledge, especially one who is undecided when replying to an opinion poll or questionnaire.

Brown Bomber · 13-01-2014 10:14PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Why is it that some of the posters here can't seem to appreciate that where Catholicism is concerned, there is a formal 'ecclesial reality' and then there is the lived 'pastoral reality' of the people in the pews? These two realities are sometimes at huge variance with each other. If anything, the 'ecclesial reality' is less real than the 'pastoral reality', because the 'ecclesial reality' is an ideal, while the 'pastoral reality' is the actual case.

And yet the ones who want to believe that the 'ecclesial reality' is (and should be!) the whole story, are calling people who have some experience of the 'pastoral reality' liars because the truth makes them uncomfortable?

Insisting that every Catholic alive needs to 'get with the program' and accept the absolute truth of the 'ecclesial reality' and deny the existence of the 'pastoral reality' is kinda what the boys in the hierarchy do... and it's amusing to me that the RCC's 'enemies' are pushing that agenda even more vehemently than the most conservative RCC henchmen?

IMO, you can quote the formal documents all you want, it doesn't make the truth go away.

:rolleyes:

It's also what Al Qaeda would say about normal Muslims. It's what Billy Graham would say about normal Christians. It's what Kahanists would say about normal Jews.

This explains the black and white thinking of religious nutters, not sure why some atheists allign themselves with these extremists.

Splitting (also called all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground.)

The concept of splitting was developed by Ronald Fairbairn in his formulation of object relations theory;I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I it begins as the inability of the infant to combine the fulfilling aspects of the parents (the good object) and their unresponsive aspects (the unsatisfying object) into the same individuals, but sees the good and bad as separate. In psychoanalytic theory this functions as a defense mechanism.[2] It is a relatively common defense mechanism for people with borderline personality disorder in DSM-IV-TR.

Turtwig · 13-01-2014 10:28PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Why is it that some of the posters here can't seem to appreciate that where Catholicism is concerned, there is a formal 'ecclesial reality' and then there is the lived 'pastoral reality' of the people in the pews? These two realities are sometimes at huge variance with each other. If anything, the 'ecclesial reality' is less real than the 'pastoral reality', because the 'ecclesial reality' is an ideal, while the 'pastoral reality' is the actual case.

And yet the ones who want to believe that the 'ecclesial reality' is (and should be!) the whole story, are calling people who have some experience of the 'pastoral reality' liars because the truth makes them uncomfortable?

Insisting that every Catholic alive needs to 'get with the program' and accept the absolute truth of the 'ecclesial reality' and deny the existence of the 'pastoral reality' is kinda what the boys in the hierarchy do... and it's amusing to me that the RCC's 'enemies' are pushing that agenda even more vehemently than the most conservative RCC henchmen?

IMO, you can quote the formal documents all you want, it doesn't make the truth go away.

:rolleyes:

There is no black and white here and that's actually what you're missing. People aren't saying that Catholics should follow exact rules. The Magesterium of the Church does have certain rules that represented the baseline for one would expect a Catholic to follow. The issue here is that in this thread some people seem to be arguing the bizarre case that anything so far off the baseline to the point of being Muslim is still Catholic as long as the person self identify's as Catholic. Fair enough, however, the problem here is that when determining the way forward to society you describe Protestants as Catholic or Muslims as Catholic you inevitably plan stuff wrong. Do Catholics need to get with the program? Nope. They could be a bit less confusing and use labels that more accurately beliefs though. Fact is, most people expect Catholics to have something in common with the RCC, namely the Magisterium as dictated to most lay people in the Cathechism. They don't have to follow that exactly but really you expect at least some tiny bit of adherence to it. A quick opinion of Irish people would tell you, people who identify as Catholic, would leave you actually bemused. It's also makes things really bloody confusing because then how does one define a Catholic? Obviously when someone you meet in the street tells you're Catholic you don't expect them to be a muslim or atheist. Yet going by the strand of dicussion in this thread that is what you might be expected to tolerate. Which, again is bizarre. Catholics in Ireland are more aptly described as being protestant. It's like people who support Manchester City going around wearing Man Utd jerseys the whole time. They tell you they support Man City but they but as far as checking all the properties of a Man United supporter go they tick more boxes. Yes, there are shades of grey to Catholicism but there are limits. There are points where are person who self identifies as Catholic can be reasonably questioned on their stance of Catholicism. Especially when whatever happy medium you take as being Catholic still seems completely at odds with the person's belief.

It's well and good to point out that others can't tell person when they're not a Catholic, but at least be consistent. Some people seem to be going much further and saying NOBODY who identifies as Catholic isn't wrongly self identifying. That's just absurd. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck it's most likely not a elephant.

Turtwig · 13-01-2014 10:42PM

Piliger wrote: »

Obtuse ? :rolleyes: I am being direct and crystal clear. if there is such a statement by the pope of the vatican, please quote it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, I will call you a liar and if you continue to lie then I will report you.The catechism has been referenced many (dozens) of times in this thread, I even included a link in the post you just quoted. My patience for your nonsense wears thin.

Mod: Aww now folks. Accusations of lying never lead to constructive discussion. If you suggest someone is lying or playing the discussion game unfairly then please report the post. Now, spit on yer hands and shake.

Ahem,
(Maybe that's pushing the expectation a tad too far?)

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2014 10:45PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This just gets better and better.

Before we go any further can we clarify that to you when someone answers "don't know what to think", to the question "Do you believe in God?" it means "No".

If you ask someone "Do you believe in god?" (not exactly what was asked, but you get my point) and they say anything but yes (or "yes, but..."), then they don't believe in god. It may be very slight, as close to pure agnostic as you can get, but given the option to describe their beliefs, these people did not describe themselves as holding a believe in any kind of god.

So now that we have that out of the way, go back to the rest of my post.

Piliger · 13-01-2014 11:22PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, I will call you a liar and if you continue to lie then I will report you.The catechism has been referenced many (dozens) of times in this thread, I even included a link in the post you just quoted. My patience for your nonsense wears thin.

So ... no reference again. If it is there why not cut and paste it here ? Because it doesn't exist.

I am not going to follow you down to personal abuse.

And to remind you yet again ... quote here directly where the pope or the vatican says that if you don't follow these rules you repeatedly quote, then you are not a catholic.

NONE of your references quote either the pope or the vatican saying that you are not a catholic if you do not follow rules x,y and z.

if you have one then bring it on.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments