Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

I Heart Internet · 15-01-2014 01:23PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And why exactly do you think they think people should listen to them? Why are they making submissions to the UN and ICHR to maintain the status quo in Ireland under the guise of 'freedom of religion' .

They hope people will listen to them. That's all. No more than that. If people don't they won't get far. Same as thousands of other lobbyists/ngos/campaigners. The fact that people who talk about religion or talk about things from a religious viewpoint are in the media doesn't mean they control the wheels of state. It's just one more voice in the chorus that comes from civil society.

A strong and diverse civil society (including religious people/organisations) is a great, great thing. It's what protects and enriches our democracy and gives people a voice.

catallus · 15-01-2014 01:48PM

The fundamentalism going on in this thread is awful to see. You wouldn't see such closed minded bigotry in a cave in afghanistan. Is it because of the ultimate message of the church (the acceptance of all people regardless of their sinfulness) which sparks such enraged manic intolerance? Could it really be that simple?

Delirium · 15-01-2014 01:50PM

catallus wrote: »

The fundamentalism going on in this thread is awful to see. You wouldn't see such closed minded bigotry in a cave in afghanistan. Is it because of the ultimate message of the church (the acceptance of all people regardless of their sinfulness) which sparks such enraged manic intolerance? Could it really be that simple?

3/10 for effort.

Cabaal · 15-01-2014 01:53PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They hope people will listen to them. That's all. No more than that. If people don't they won't get far. Same as thousands of other lobbyists/ngos/campaigners.

Nothing more?
You sure about that one?

How about saying that TD's who support abortion legislation shouldn't be given communion and/or could be excommunicated.

A SENIOR Vatican cardinal has told priests not to give communion to politicians who support abortion.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/priests-told-deny-communion-to-tds-who-support-abortion-29051662.html

Even after the vote the RCC continued to act the **** towards td's who did not vote for what the RCC wanted,

A number of TDs, particularly in more rural areas, have told of how they were warned off from seeking Communion by their local priests if they voted for the bill.

One minister claimed he was threatened with excommunication by his local priest from the altar.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fg-tds-suffer-communion-snub-29561349.html

Thats not just hoping people will listen, thats the Vatican trying to directly impact on our governments decisions by holding the persons religious belief at ransom.

Its pathetic, disgusting and it shows just how low the Vatican will go to get what it wants when it wants something.

Meanwhile the Vatican refuses to provide documentation on the sex abuse cases it knowingly covered up, they also say they are not legally responsible for any abuses.

Cabaal · 15-01-2014 01:55PM

catallus wrote: »

The fundamentalism going on in this thread is awful to see. You wouldn't see such closed minded bigotry in a cave in afghanistan. Is it because of the ultimate message of the church (the acceptance of all people regardless of their sinfulness) which sparks such enraged manic intolerance? Could it really be that simple?

Yeah, its all about the peace and love.

I mean, its not like the catholic church ruined people's lives if
- they were gay
- they had a child outside of marriage
- they wanted to leave their husband/wife due to abuse...or whatever reason
- they were taken into care (all the abuse)

oh....wait...

Even if we accept that the RCC has accepted its wrongdoings then we should expect them to take swift action and help and compensate victims of abuses carried out by RCC employee's. But, we're still waiting on that one.

for effort I give your post 0/10

CramCycle · 15-01-2014 02:03PM

catallus wrote: »

Is it because of the ultimate message of the church (the acceptance of all people regardless of their sinfulness) which sparks such enraged manic intolerance? Could it really be that simple?

Way off topic but it was hinted or mentioned in thread before, it is the sins they ignore or cover up, alongside what they refer to as 'sins' that they use as a basis to demean and exclude others that generally leads to what you call "manic intolerance" of the church by some.

I Heart Internet · 15-01-2014 02:04PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Nothing more?
You sure about that one?

Yes.

Cabaal wrote: »

How about saying that TD's who support abortion legislation shouldn't be given communion.

Thats not just hoping people will listen, thats trying to force people to make a decision in the RCC favor by holding the persons religious belief at ransom.

Its pathetic,

Firstly, ask yourself who said that. You'll find that the "no communion for Irish politicians supporting abortion" was raised by the media. Bishops who were asked sought to play down the prospect of this.

Secondly, if a church did decide to do this, you'll find that they would be acting agaisnt their own members. i.e. only church members could have this "punishment" meted out to them and only for being church members - not for being politicians.

Perhaps I haven't made myself very clear - what I mean is: the church can discipline members and members are free to take it or not. The church has no power to control or discipline politicians. That some politicians are church members is simple a matter of fact.

Bottom line: Despite what you're trying to suggest, no one listens to the RCC in Ireland because "Ireland is a catholic country".

Cabaal · 15-01-2014 02:16PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Perhaps I haven't made myself very clear - what I mean is: the church can discipline members and members are free to take it or not. The church has no power to control or discipline politicians. That some politicians are church members is simple a matter of fact.

Hang on,
Bishops say the catholic church operates a open door and welcomes all, the church's line is they welcome people who have even committed sin. It is god's job to punish the sinful ultimately.

Now you're saying the church can punish/discipline its members in the way it see's fit, but thats gods job...outside of the church telling people to say some prayers.

If it its members are carrying out their jobs when running a state and the church's discipline is clearly an attempt to influence the member's freewill when doing their job of running another country. Then this isn't discipline, this is trying to influence the running of a country (and the thousands upon thousands none members within) and not just influence how that one member lives.

You have to remember that the Vatican is a state, so what we actually have is one country trying to decide what legislation should be past in another country thousands of miles away.

If America was trying to force legislation to pass the way they wanted by holding TD's to random they'd be uproar, but you see no problem with this.

You are pathetic as the RCC and all it stands for if you think the Vatican's attempt to hold people to random by their beliefs is ok.

Very clearly the Vatican maintains its stance against democracy, freedom of will and thought. I guess god gave freewill to man and thats fine as well as long as you use that freewill to agree with the Vatican's views, very clearly a majority in Ireland do not subscribe to much of the Vatican's extreme and backwards views (gay's, divorce, abortion rights etc)

robindch · 15-01-2014 02:30PM

Cabaal wrote: »

You are pathetic as the RCC and all it stands for if you think the Vatican's attempt to hold people to random by their beliefs is ok.

catallus wrote: »

You wouldn't see such closed minded bigotry in a cave in afghanistan. Is it because of the ultimate message of the church (the acceptance of all people regardless of their sinfulness) which sparks such enraged manic intolerance?

^^^ oi, oi, peace and love, folks, peace and love.

Bannasidhe · 15-01-2014 02:36PM

catallus wrote: »

The fundamentalism going on in this thread is awful to see. You wouldn't see such closed minded bigotry in a cave in afghanistan. Is it because of the ultimate message of the church (the acceptance of all people regardless of their sinfulness) which sparks such enraged manic intolerance? Could it really be that simple?

'Is it because of the ultimate message of the church (the acceptance of all people regardless of their sinfulness) which sparks such enraged manic intolerance?'

Would that be the same church that 'accepts' me as long as I do not have sex with my partner?

Would that be the same church that historically burned people because of what they deemed 'sinfulness'?

Would that be the same church that would prefer women to die rather than terminate a pregnancy?

Would that be the same church that is shifting the ownership of property into trust funds to avoid paying recompense to victims of clerical abuse?

Would that be the same church the protected paedophiles within it's ranks?

'Manic intolerance' indeed.

My irony meter just exploded.

I Heart Internet · 15-01-2014 02:43PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Hang on,

You are pathetic as the RCC and all it stands for if you think the Vatican's attempt to hold people to random by their beliefs is ok.

A problem here is too many actors - church, vatican, bishops, people, Iona, etc, etc. Arguments are getting muddled I think.

But on the specific point of communion. Briefly, there are, in fact, rules/guidelines about when one should/should not receive communion. A person who facilitates an abortion is deemed to have committed a grave sin and therefore should not receive communion. It is not a stretch to consider politicians who facilitate abortion by legalising it are also in trouble there.

Personally, I favour the view of Pope Francis who says that communion should not be seen as a "prize for the holy, but rather medicine for the weak sinner." (I'm paraphrasing, it was something like that).

Nodin · 15-01-2014 02:48PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Nodin, you are so hard-line and fundamentalist in your definition of what is and what is not a catholic!

(............).

Moi? Not at all. It's the RC you want to be taking it up with.

catallus wrote:

The fundamentalism going on in this thread is awful to see. You wouldn't see
such closed minded bigotry in a cave in afghanistan. Is it because of the
ultimate message of the church (the acceptance of all people regardless of their
sinfulness) which sparks such enraged manic intolerance? Could it really be that
simple?

You can only be forgiven if you repent. If somebody doesn't follow the churches teaching on contraception, for instance, they aren't going to be forgiven if they don't believe in it and refuse to change their ways.

Bannasidhe · 15-01-2014 02:48PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

A problem here is too many actors - church, vatican, bishops, people, Iona, etc, etc. Arguments are getting muddled I think.

But on the specific point of communion. Briefly, there are, in fact, rules/guidelines about when one should/should not receive communion. A person who facilitates an abortion is deemed to have committed a grave sin and therefore should not receive communion. It is not a stretch to consider politicians who facilitate abortion by legalising it are also in trouble there.

Personally, I favour the view of Pope Francis who says that communion should not be seen as a "prize for the holy, but rather medicine for the weak sinner." (I'm paraphrasing, it was something like that).

Wait - there are rules now.

Surely if one 'self-identifies' as a Catholic one is free to take communion or not and no 'rules' apply. After all, it seems one doesn't even need to believe in the existence of God to be considered a Catholic so the concept of 'sin' is meaningless in this context.

catallus · 15-01-2014 02:49PM

The only irony is that the godless revel in their sinfulness while demanding that the virtuous bend the knee to faithless vice.

Cabaal · 15-01-2014 02:52PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

A problem here is too many actors - church, vatican, bishops, people, Iona, etc, etc. Arguments are getting muddled I think.

But on the specific point of communion. Briefly, there are, in fact, rules/guidelines about when one should/should not receive communion. A person who facilitates an abortion is deemed to have committed a grave sin and therefore should not receive communion.

Not too long ago a unmarried women who gave birth would have been punished by the church,

Infact this still goes on and I know if one women who gave birth outside of marriage and the local catholic priest refuses to allow her communion and would not baptize the child.

....but sure i guess thats yet another case of the priest pretending he's god again and choosing to ignore the Vatican's stance that such children should be welcome into the church.

It seems the RCC can't control their employee's, but then I guess nothing has changed their as they couldn't control them in the 1950's either.

Personally, I favour the view of Pope Francis who says that communion should not be seen as a "prize for the holy, but rather medicine for the weak sinner." (I'm paraphrasing, it was something like that).

In which case the Vatican is going against the pope's words, employee's not following the pope again.

Bannasidhe · 15-01-2014 02:52PM

catallus wrote: »

The only irony is that the godless revel in their sinfulness while demanding that the virtuous bend the knee to faithless vice.

Did you make that piece of judgemental clap-trap up yourself or is it a cut and paste from a polemic?

What sinfulness am I revelling in then?

I Heart Internet · 15-01-2014 02:52PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wait - there are rules now.

Surely if one 'self-identifies' as a Catholic one is free to take communion or not and no 'rules' apply. After all, it seems one doesn't even need to believe in the existence of God to be considered a Catholic so the concept of 'sin' is meaningless in this context.

What you're grappling with here is that we live in a democracy and one is free (anywhere in the world) to be/call yourself a member of the RCC or not. It seems like you;re distressed that everyone cannot be put in little boxes for you to label.

PopePalpatine · 15-01-2014 02:53PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you make that piece of judgemental clap-trap up yourself or is it a cut and paste from a polemic?

What sinfulness am I revelling in then?

Refusing to obey the Catholic Gestapo, I guess. :rolleyes:

Cabaal · 15-01-2014 02:57PM

catallus wrote: »

The only irony is that the godless revel in their sinfulness while demanding that the virtuous bend the knee to faithless vice.

I'm sure there's a rock that you could crawl under that would make you happy,

robindch · 15-01-2014 02:58PM

catallus wrote: »

The only irony is that the godless revel in their sinfulness while demanding that the virtuous bend the knee to faithless vice.

Yeah, ha, ha, catallus, very funny.

Look, you've been warned once about fist-waving. Any more juvenile behavior and I'll grab my pack of red and yellow cards.

Cabaal · 15-01-2014 03:01PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What you're grappling with here is that we live in a democracy and one is free (anywhere in the world) to be/call yourself a member of the RCC or not. It seems like you;re distressed that everyone cannot be put in little boxes for you to label.

wrong,
If you want to call yourself a member of the RCC or any faith in one or two country's you'll likely end up dead or your life will be made a living hell.

If you say you are anything other then Islamic in others you'd want to leave them quick.

Just to equal things out, if you say you are a atheist, muslim or anything other then christian in many states/countrys then you'll have a very very hard time finding a job and people locally won't want to know you.

Do you see a trend here? Life made harder due to religions

Bannasidhe · 15-01-2014 03:02PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What you're grappling with here is that we live in a democracy and one is free (anywhere in the world) to be/call yourself a member of the RCC or not. It seems like you;re distressed that everyone cannot be put in little boxes for you to label.

No. I believe it is you who are having trouble with the fact that we live in an (alleged) Republic where every citizen should be equal in the eyes of the State and no citizen given preferential treatment by the State.

For example:

Clerics should not be protected from prosecution if they break the law - and those who act to protect those clerics should be charged with perverting the course of justice - even if they are a Cardinal.

No person's religious beliefs should ever be allowed to impact on others being treated equally by the State.

No religious denomination should be allowed to control the provision of State Funded Education.

I am annoyed that the RCC via the State is trying to shoe-horn everybody in a specific little box with a cross on it.

By the By - Are there rules or not?

It has to be either yes or no. So which is it?

Brian Shanahan · 15-01-2014 04:42PM

catallus wrote: »

All this cynical reduction of faith and religious freedom to asinine political swiping by wilfully mis-informed misanthropes is hard to read. A bit of variety might help.

As you full well know very few people in Ireland actually have faith. The only reason why the church still has so much influence in this country is because inertia is the greatest force among the populace, that is why nearly every election a large body of people vote FF and a week later start complaining that they got into power and why would people vote for them.

The church in this country is very good at exploiting peoples' unwillingness to rock the boat, no matter how disfunctional the situation is (95% of primary school children being forced fed religious brainwashing is massively disfunctional, writing laws that favour groups of not living cells over living women is massively disfunctional and so on).

catallus · 15-01-2014 04:57PM

How can you make the blind assertion that few people have faith? Along with your nonsense about people complaining about FF a week after electing them (the only people who vocally admonish any political party are the small bunch of loudmouths, and they hardly voted for them) it seems that making broad unverifiable statements is fashionable in the same places as counter-cultural rabble-rousing. Coincidence? I think not!

I Heart Internet · 15-01-2014 05:14PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the By - Are there rules or not?

It has to be either yes or no. So which is it?

There are a myriad of rules. From the old testement/10 commandments, to Christ's "Golden Rule" of loving God and your neighbour as yourself, to the present Cathecism of the Catholic Church, to the teaching of popes and your local parish priest. There are also rules own might impose on oneself - vows and so forth. And there are rules/traditions local to particular churches in parts of the world.

So yes, loads of rules. We all have the choice to either follow them, as best we can, or not. If you want to be a good catholic, you should read, understand and try to live by the teachings of Christ and the Cathecism. But it's ok, lots of people can't even spell Cathecism (can I?) and that doesn't mean they're bad people.

I am a catholic who regularly has naughty thoughts about my neighbour. Regularly!! Am I not a catholic so?? Or am I just a very naughty boy?

All boils down to people wanting to put other people in nice, easily labelled boxes. Silly. Live and let live.

Piliger · 15-01-2014 05:14PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

As you full well know very few people in Ireland actually have faith.

Wow ... The Almighty All Knowing One Has Spoken :rolleyes:

Piliger · 15-01-2014 05:19PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There are a myriad of rules. From the old testement/10 commandments, to Christ's "Golden Rule" of loving God and your neighbour as yourself, to the present Cathecism of the Catholic Church, to the teaching of popes and your local parish priest. There are also rules own might impose on oneself - vows and so forth. And there are rules/traditions local to particular churches in parts of the world.

So yes, loads of rules. We all have the choice to either follow them, as best we can, or not.

I am a catholic who regularly has naughty thoughts about my neighbour. Regularly!! Am I not a catholic so?? Or am I just a very naughty boy?

All boils down to people wanting to put other people in nice, easily labelled boxes. Silly. Live and let live.

That sums it up nicely. Some people are addicted to labels and boxes. They can only 'deal' with complex issues when they can slot everyone into those neat and tidy boxes and labels. Then they can organise and sort their 'rules' and apply them in an ordered fashion. If you call yourself a catholic then as far as others are concerned you are a catholic, unless you criticise others in a hypocritical way. What is in your heart is your business and no one else's.

I am an Atheist. It's not for anyone else to tell me otherwise.

Turtwig · 15-01-2014 05:25PM

Piliger wrote: »

I am an Atheist. It's not for anyone else to tell me otherwise.

It is if you believe in a God and follow the RCC Catechism right down to the letter.

Again, I find myself asking, do you not think it's possible for anyone to self identify incorrectly?

swampgas · 15-01-2014 05:29PM

Piliger wrote: »

That sums it up nicely. Some people are addicted to labels and boxes. They can only 'deal' with complex issues when they can slot everyone into those neat and tidy boxes and labels. Then they can organise and sort their 'rules' and apply them in an ordered fashion. If you call yourself a catholic then as far as others are concerned you are a catholic, unless you criticise others in a hypocritical way. What is in your heart is your business and no one else's.

I am an Atheist. It's not for anyone else to tell me otherwise.

If you claimed to believe in God but still wanted to self-identify as an atheist, would that be sensible? I don't think so.

So why should people who don't believe in most of the teachings of the RCC be allowed to call themselves Catholics?

Someone who accepts the RCC's official standards on sex, contraception, etc. while failing to live up to those standards, that person I can accept as a Catholic, as they accept the churches values even if they fail to live up to them.

However, IMO, someone who actually fundamentally disagrees with the RCC's position should not call themselves a Catholic, nor can I see why on earth they would want to.

Turtwig · 15-01-2014 05:29PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

All boils down to people wanting to put other people in nice, easily labelled boxes. Silly. Live and let live.

On the surface 'Live and let Live' is a beautiful idea but it can't really work in an ideal sense. Let alone a practical real-life scenario. Live and let live in practice will always lead to the expectation of tolerance towards intolerance.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments