Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

1…2627293132…70

Comments

  • #842
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    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. 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.

    What, exactly, is the point of having rules if there is no need/requirement for 'members' to follow said rules?

    What is being discussed - among other tangents - is whether some one who knowingly, unapologetically and without remorse continually breaks the rules of an organisation can still be considered a member of that organisation.

    I say No.
    You say Yes.

    What muddies the issue when it come to the RCC is - according to their revised rules - once one is a 'member', one can never 'officially' leave.


    As for all of this use of 'bad' and 'good' - such subjective and often emotive terms. Certainly not ones I have used for that reason.

    What you think about your neighbour is your own business - you decide for yourself if it is 'naughty or nice'. None of my business.

    However - the RCC thinks it is their business what I do and this fuels the likes of Iona to spout nonsense and stick me in the 'homosexual lifestyle' box and lobby for continued discrimination by the State against all of us who they have boxed.

    Why aren't you telling the RCC to mind it's own business?

    Personally, I have no issue with them having rules and enforcing them. It is when they try and coerce politicians to enforce the rules of the RCC in a civil state that problems arise. In these situations, politicians have a choice - obey the church or represent all of their constituents - Catholic and Non-Catholic equally.


  • #843
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I suspect that what you want when you say "seperation of church and state" is for churches to have no visibility in any public discourse, to have no right to private property, no right to put their point of view into public debate, no right to function as genuine civil society organisations.

    Sounds like a bad faith (as it were) suspicion to me, as no-one has said anything remotely like this. If there's been a theme on this, I'd say it's on the lines of "the state needs to stop repeatedly putting its hand in its pocket to cash cheques the churches are writing". That would apply to the institutional abuse compensation shortfall, the voluntary hospitals, the "private" schools...

    Oh, and dropping explicit metaphysical claims about the existence of god from the constitution would seem like a plan, too.


  • #844
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What, exactly, is the point of having rules if there is no need/requirement for 'members' to follow said rules?
    As above somewhere, it seems that catholics simply aren't interested in what membership actually means.

    Instead, they're just interested in being part of the biggest gang in town - a low-cost form of social inclusion for the individual believers and political power for the RCC.


  • #845
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    How do you know I am being facetious? So what if I am?
    Someone who self-identifies as a Roman Catholic but doesn't actually believe in the existence of God is ok with you but I am being 'disrespectful'. Hmmmmmm - double standards m'thinks.
    Think harder...

    Never said the above.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I absolutely do respect the rights of others to self-identify as what ever they want
    Do you? Why then be so smug and elitist about individuals doing exactly this?
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Have you forgotten how a midwife tried to explain to the Halappanavars why Savita could not have a termination 'because this is a Catholic Country' ?
    No, this is a non-sequitur though.

    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It is not .
    Never claimed it was.

    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It is a country with a lot of Catholic. So are Spain, France and Italy yet none of them feel the need to have the RCC strut on their national stage or influence their laws.

    If you do not understand the difference between 'this is a Catholic country' and 'this is a country with a lot of Catholics' then, again, some one with more patience then I might be willing to explain it to you.

    Haven't a breeze what you are ranting on about. Whatever gave you the idea that I considered Ireland a "Catholic" country? You might want to start by explaining that :rolleyes:


  • #846
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, desperate is ignoring all of the post that already debunks your point, as if I'm going to forget that I posted it or something. So, again:
    "The people surveyed were given a number of different positions re:god and asked which best described their beliefs. They had the choice of either an interventionist god or a general life force/spirit. Therefore choosing "I don't know" is a damn sight closer to not believing in god than it is to believing god. And that's besides the point I made about how the people who chose life spirit are also not catholics, given how the god of the catholic bible is so specifically interventionist."
    Do you honestly expect me to continue a conversation with someone who insists that "don't know" = "No" because it suits theirs argument?

    What other obvious falsehoods will you insist on?


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Whatever gave you the idea that I considered Ireland a "Catholic" country? You might want to start by explaining that :rolleyes:
    Bannasidhe, please allow me to oblige:
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Oh yeah, according to our own census we are as a nation over 90% Christian.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I'm assuming that BB thinks that catholic means christian.


  • #848
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Do you honestly expect me to continue a conversation with someone who insists that "don't know" = "No" because it suits theirs argument?

    What other obvious falsehoods will you insist on?

    "The people surveyed were given a number of different positions re:god and asked which best described their beliefs. They had the choice of either an interventionist god or a general life force/spirit. Therefore choosing "I don't know" is a damn sight closer to not believing in god than it is to believing god. And that's besides the point I made about how the people who chose life spirit are also not catholics, given how the god of the catholic bible is so specifically interventionist."


  • #849
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Think harder...

    Never said the above.


    Do you? Why then be so smug and elitist about individuals doing exactly this?


    No, this is a non-sequitur though.



    Never claimed it was.




    Haven't a breeze what you are ranting on about. Whatever gave you the idea that I considered Ireland a "Catholic" country? You might want to start by explaining that :rolleyes:



    Resorting to quote mining and roll eyes now...oh dear.

    I said:

    'I absolutely do respect the rights of others to self-identify as what ever they want however I do not respect the right of any one to use these self-identifications as justification for State funding of indoctrination or for the purposes of lobbying government to legislate according to this self-identification.'

    Care to respond or would you prefer to try and deflect again.


  • #850
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    swampgas wrote: »
    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.

    Well, IMO people who insist on slapping labels on other people who do not want or identify with those labels, are offensive bullying arrogant and conceited - everything that the catholic church itself is.


  • #851
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    However - the RCC thinks it is their business what I do and this fuels the likes of Iona to spout nonsense and stick me in the 'homosexual lifestyle' box and lobby for continued discrimination by the State against all of us who they have boxed.

    a) I couldn't give a monkeys what a bunch of stupid offensive people think or say. It's called free speech.

    b) They don't control our Government or State. The voters do.
    Why aren't you telling the RCC to mind it's own business?
    I don't care enough about them. They are entitled to have their own ignorant and deluded views.
    Personally, I have no issue with them having rules and enforcing them.
    "Them" is whom ? Iona are only a media mouthpiece.
    It is when they try and coerce politicians to enforce the rules of the RCC in a civil state that problems arise. In these situations, politicians have a choice - obey the church or represent all of their constituents - Catholic and Non-Catholic equally.

    I have seen no sign of any effort by the RCC to coerce any politicians into doing their bidding in Ireland for many a year, nor any sign of the State or Government being influenced in such a way. The RCC are entitled, as anyone else is, to hold their views and express them. In the last five years, at least, I have seen little evidence that anyone except the perhaps a handful of local political nutters who pay any attention.

    What I do see are voters being influenced and guided and intimidated by the RCC into how they vote. Politicians care only about voters in Ireland today IMHO.


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Piliger wrote: »


    I have seen no sign of any effort by the RCC to coerce any politicians into doing their bidding in Ireland for many a year

    Did their representatives not threaten TD's with excommunication if they voted for the abortion legislation?


  • #853
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Piliger wrote: »

    I have seen no sign of any effort by the RCC to coerce any politicians into doing their bidding in Ireland for many a year, nor any sign of the State or Government being influenced in such a way. ...............


    You haven't been paying attention then.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cardinal-keeps-excommunication-threat-hanging-over-abortion-tds-29242992.html


  • #854
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jernal wrote: »
    Quoting the Cathechism IS quoting the Vatican.

    Piligier, at what point is a person not a Catholic? Is it possible for them to self identify as a Catholic and not actually be Catholic? Or are you literally taking the black and white stance that a person is whatever they claim to be regardless of their attitude and actions.
    Jernal wrote: »
    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?

    Piligier any chance you could address the question of whether it's possible for a person to self identify incorrectly. It might make this discussion progress a bit.


  • #855
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    I said:

    'I absolutely do respect the rights of others to self-identify as what ever they want however I do not respect the right of any one to use these self-identifications as justification for State funding of indoctrination or for the purposes of lobbying government to legislate according to this self-identification.'

    Care to respond or would you prefer to try and deflect again.

    If someone chooses an identity, then others are entitled to use that choice as a basis for their characterisation of that person, individually and collectively. That is the meaning of individual responsibility and respect for that individual.

    There is NO justification for the State to support ANY indoctrination of it's citizens, adult of child.

    Lobbying is an entitlement. The Gov responding is another matter. Others with different views, including their 'evidence' of inaccuracy of those numbers, are entitled to lobby in opposition.


  • #856
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,644 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Piliger wrote: »
    Well, IMO people who insist on slapping labels on other people who do not want or identify with those labels, are offensive bullying arrogant and conceited - everything that the catholic church itself is.

    This isn't about labeling others, though, is it? This is about labeling yourself with someone else's identifier.

    Isn't there something a bit odd about using someone else's label for yourself? I think self-identifying as a Catholic when your beliefs and actions indicate that you are really not Catholic at all, is a bit disrespectful to those people who genuinely do follow the Catholic church.

    I am genuinely interested in what motivates people so strongly to keep calling themselves Catholic. Is it fear of being excluded? Fear of what people might say, or how they might be judged, if they identify themselves as non-Catholic?


  • #857
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 40,107 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Piliger wrote: »
    Lobbying is an entitlement. The Gov responding is another matter. Others with different views, including their 'evidence' of inaccuracy of those numbers, are entitled to lobby in opposition.

    These are not SIMI or the IFA or any industry or grass roots organisations we're talking about. YD, Iona and others are highly secretive and well-funded. We have no transparency that they are not receiving funds from outside the country to attempt to influence (or, more accurately, subvert) our politics here.

    When Michael Woods gave the RCC a >1 billion euro paedophile bailout, whose interest was he acting in?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #858
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 40,107 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Piliger wrote: »
    If someone chooses an identity, then others are entitled to use that choice as a basis for their characterisation of that person, individually and collectively. That is the meaning of individual responsibility and respect for that individual.

    Yet above you said that it didn't bother you if 'stupid offensive people' spew whatever hatred they like. People have a right to respect, but no duty to respect others?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #859
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    swampgas wrote: »
    This isn't about labeling others, though, is it? This is about labeling yourself with someone else's identifier.

    Isn't there something a bit odd about using someone else's label for yourself? I think self-identifying as a Catholic when your beliefs and actions indicate that you are really not Catholic at all, is a bit disrespectful to those people who genuinely do follow the Catholic church.

    I am genuinely interested in what motivates people so strongly to keep calling themselves Catholic. Is it fear of being excluded? Fear of what people might say, or how they might be judged, if they identify themselves as non-Catholic?

    Yet your hypothesis is not supported by anything other than a tiny handful of personal experiences.


  • #860
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Yet above you said that it didn't bother you if 'stupid offensive people' spew whatever hatred they like. People have a right to respect, but no duty to respect others?

    Where did I say anything about hatred ? Don't put words in my mouth please. I said " They are entitled to have their own ignorant and deluded views."


  • #861
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    ninja900 wrote: »
    These are not SIMI or the IFA or any industry or grass roots organisations we're talking about. YD, Iona and others are highly secretive and well-funded. We have no transparency that they are not receiving funds from outside the country to attempt to influence (or, more accurately, subvert) our politics here.

    When Michael Woods gave the RCC a >1 billion euro paedophile bailout, whose interest was he acting in?

    I have no idea, but one dodgy incident that is open to question is not a basis for an argument such as this imho.


  • Advertisement
  • #862
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Piliger wrote: »
    I have no idea, but one dodgy incident that is open to question is not a basis for an argument such as this imho.

    Here's a second
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=88485623


  • #863
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Nodin wrote: »
    Here's a second
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=88485623

    Ignoring the link - which is mistaken, the issue you raise and question is whether the State use the numbers from the census as a basis for decision making - I would suggest to you that there is NO WAY this happened in this case. This was either a rogue minister indulging his own religious prejudices and favouritism or fear of the voters.


  • #864
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Did their representatives not threaten TD's with excommunication if they voted for the abortion legislation?
    Nodin wrote: »
    You haven't been paying attention then.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cardinal-keeps-excommunication-threat-hanging-over-abortion-tds-29242992.html

    The RCC is an organisation/religion/grouping - call it what you will. The admin/powers of that organisation have a right to admin it as they chose. It is after all an authoritarian organisation from it's bottom to it's top.

    Threatening to withhold a facet of it's ritual is something well within their rights and could in no rational or reasonable way be interpreted as 'coercion'. It may be offensive and aggressive - and it is both - but it is not even close to being coercive.

    Replace the RCC with the Boy Scouts. If the BS said to the Ministers they could not come to jamboree if they voted for gay marriage .... is that coercion ? No. No. No.


  • #865
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Piliger wrote: »
    The RCC is an organisation/religion/grouping - call it what you will. The admin/powers of that organisation have a right to admin it as they chose. It is after all an authoritarian organisation from it's bottom to it's top.

    Threatening to withhold a facet of it's ritual is something well within their rights and could in no rational or reasonable way be interpreted as 'coercion'. It may be offensive and aggressive - and it is both - but it is not even close to being coercive.

    Replace the RCC with the Boy Scouts. If the BS said to the Ministers they could not come to jamboree if they voted for gay marriage .... is that coercion ? No. No. No.


    Dear me, the lengths some people will bend sense to.....It's a threat, it was intended to coerce.


  • #866
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Jernal wrote: »
    Piligier any chance you could address the question of whether it's possible for a person to self identify incorrectly. It might make this discussion progress a bit.

    No. Except in exceptional cases where the person is deluded or insane.

    You just don't get what identity and religion mean to people. It's not about a club. It is about identity. The admin of these religions do not 'own' the religion. No religion operates like this. The religions are held by the people and the admin just act as celebrants and admin people. Yes they make rules, but not rules whereby people are excluded for not obeying them, except in exception situations. They do not HAVE THAT POWER because they do not own the religion! Again the anology with 'clubs' is a wholly misguided one.

    People see these religions as 'theirs' to interpret more or less as they see fit. So people who disagree with the RCC about contraception and abortion and some of the body-of-christ and rising from the dead stuff .... still identify with the religion because they feel that that stuff is either outdated, intended to be a parable etc... They identify with the 'culture' and 'identity' of the religion at a much more basic level.

    Do I think that 'counting' everyone who ticks the RCC tickbox is a valid argument for anything much other than a claim that X number of people feel and identify with being RCC ? NO. But that is a DIFFERENT question.


  • #867
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Nodin wrote: »
    Dear me, the lengths some people will bend sense to.....It's a threat, it was intended to coerce.

    Nope. Bend away.


  • #868
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    A threat isn't a coercion technique? What's next? A round object has no curvature?


  • #869
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    Jernal wrote: »
    A round object has no curvature?

    A round object that has no couverture... is definitely not a chocolate salty ball.

    :P


  • #870
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Piliger wrote: »
    Yet your hypothesis is not supported by anything other than a tiny handful of personal experiences.

    This has been debunked in detail before. It cannot be dismissed as just some posters personal experiences when independent survey after survey of catholics in the republic of Ireland show support for things specifically decried in the church, like abortion, equal rights for homosexuals and contraception, not to mention the Bishops Conference Survey showing that over 10% of catholic's not believing in god.


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ninja900 wrote: »
    These are not SIMI or the IFA or any industry or grass roots organisations we're talking about. YD, Iona and others are highly secretive and well-funded. We have no transparency that they are not receiving funds from outside the country to attempt to influence (or, more accurately, subvert) our politics here.

    To be honest I am very sceptical of the integrity of any group that has a veneer of success in its lobbying efforts in this day and age. Given that all political parties are now proxies for corporate and oligarchical interests, the brown paper bag has to be very thickly lined before you get near a single policy maker.


Advertisement