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…3031333536…70

Comments

  • #962
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Again, people are free to call themselves what they wish. That you, I or the man in the moon disagrees with what they call themselves is immaterial.

    More assumptions wbout what people believe...
    so again, if 90% of the population all of a sudden decided to tick the female/black or whatever box because they self identified as that (despite not actually being of that gender/race in any meaningful way) and the government took that census data to be accurate and continued to allow the schools to give preferential treatment to children based on sex or race so that 90% of the schools in the country could effectively be female or black only and as a result you couldn't get your male/white children into a decent school because of this decision, would you be okay with that?

    what about if people had to get their male children to cross dress and go through the motions to get a certificate to pretend they were female to get them in even though they didn't believe they were female at all?

    would you be okay with the female/black school boards discriminating against male/white children because they didn't fit in with the 'ethos' of the school?

    actually, if you were living in a household where everyone was legitimately female/black it would probably be okay with you as it wouldn't adversely affect you or your children like it would if you were in a family of majority male/white people, but would be of great benefit as you'd always get first pick of whatever schools you applied to, so screw all those other guys who can't get their kids in anywhere.


  • #963
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I never said that they don't matter. They are very important.
    But what I did say is that you, I, any bishop, archbishop or pope cannot assume the right to tell any other person what they should identify their religious beliefs as.

    I would have thought that the Atheism & Agnosticism Forum, of all places, could get on board with that message?!



    There is such a thing as a catholic ethos. It is generally informed by the gospel teachings of christ and the cathecism of the RCC. Does everyone in the community have to conform to all aspects of this - NO.

    Soooo - let me get this clear.

    There are rules.

    They are very important

    but...no Pope can assume that people who claim to follow the religion he leads actually follows these important rules or even agrees with them...

    Furthermore while there is a Catholic ethos (based on these rules perchance?) no one has to conform to them?

    Does the Catechism taught in schools with a Catholic 'ethos' therefore read something like:



    Article 1: I may or may not believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth

    Article 2: And ditto regarding Jesus Christ, his (alleged) only Son, our Lord

    Article 3: Who was possibly conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary

    Article 4: Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried (cool story bro)

    Article 5: He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead (not sure I believe in Hell....)

    Article 6: He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty (hmmmm...let me think about that...)

    Article 7: From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. (could happen....)

    Article 8: I believe in the Holy Ghost (who ya gonna call !)

    Article 9: The Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints (Well, I am a Catholic so I suppose so...)

    Article 10: The forgiveness of sins (Meh!)

    Article 11: The resurrection of the body (Have some issues with this one...)

    Article 12: And life everlasting. Amen. (well, at the end of the day who can really say?!?! )


  • #964
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    There is no such thing as real/unreal catholics, no such thing as 2nd class catholics.
    Except that the church and some catholic people do believe there is 2nd class Catholics.
    You believe that those Catholics are wrong and are in opposition to Catholic ideals.
    You've contradicted yourself again.

    In addition, it's a fact that gay Catholics are denied from participating from catholic rituals.
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I'm afraid I haven't a clue what you're talking about here.
    Try reading it again.
    You are saying that there is a community, but you dont actually have to do anything to be part of this community save tick a box occasionally.

    You then also contradict yourself by stating that catholics who are atheists in all but name are more part of the catholic community than devout catholics as along as one is baptised.
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Give us a few specific examples of there this has happend so King? Give us a few links or something. Is it widespread?
    Examples have been given on the thread.
    Brown Bomber called the country a "christian one".


  • #965
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm not really sure that you understood anything that was written in any of those posts. Did you read them? Did you feel you understood what you read? Even when it was explained patiently that you clearly didn't understand them?

    Yes. Yes, I beleive I did. Yes.
    robindch wrote: »
    Do you genuinely believe that people are "box-ticking" when they point out, as Bannsidhe and most other people have pointed out (again repeatedly), that there are a list of things that the Roman Catholic Church wants people to believe?

    There is a raft of things that the RCC teaches as truths that we should believe, practice and promote. But again and again I say that this does not prevent anyone from identifying themselves as Roman Catholics if that is what they believe in their hearts.

    Individual people decide, in the final analysis, who and what they are, and how they present themselves to the world.
    robindch wrote: »
    And that almost nobody believes a word of them? Have you noticed this? Do you care about this? The RCC says it's important, but do you think so?

    It would seem likely that somewhere around 1 billion people believe some or all of what the RCC holds as truth. What seems to upset you is that not all of those 1 billion people believe precisely 100% of everything all the time

    I believe that the mesage of Christ and His Church are very imporatant, not only to the worls, but to every human person. So perhaps, in an ideal world, 100% of people would beleive 100% of what the RCC professes. That would be lovely............also maybe a little boring.:D
    robindch wrote: »
    I'm asking these questions, less in the hope that you might answer them, and perhaps more in the hope that you might notice that you're not actually taking part in a conversation.

    And yet, people keep conversing with me; and I with them.


  • #966
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Face it man, society has changed. A majority no longer agree with the church on the big important issues that they continue to be against.

    You've made the mistake, as some in the church often do, to think that these are the "big important issues". They are not. Love of God and love of neighbour are the biggies.


  • Advertisement
  • #967
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Thank you. I'm intrigued though - how have you come to such a flattering decision about my religious belief?

    Nice misquote there BTW, really solidifies your position when you take part of a sentence completely out of context. If you re read my post you will see it is a general statement, not aimed at you in anyway. "Your a Christian BTW" is in reference to those who do not follow or believe the majority (if any) of the churches teachings/doctrines/rules but they do follow the teachings of Christ as they read/interpret them.


  • #968
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Soooo - let me get this clear.

    There are rules.

    They are very important

    but...no Pope can assume that people who claim to follow the religion he leads actually follows these important rules or even agrees with them...

    Furthermore while there is a Catholic ethos (based on these rules perchance?) no one has to conform to them?

    Does the Catechism taught in schools with a Catholic 'ethos' therefore read something like..............

    No. The faith is (and should be) thought as truth. But people are free to accept it or not.

    All very liberal when you think about it.


  • #969
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,153 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    There is such a thing as a catholic ethos. It is generally informed by the gospel teachings of christ and the cathecism of the RCC. Does everyone in the community have to conform to all aspects of this - NO.

    Really? That's not what you were saying earlier though, now is it?
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Not your fault smacl, but this discussion is just going around in circles. There was a discussion yesterday on the "ownership" of schools. People want to pretend that catholic communities don't own catholic ethos schools (which are publicly funded).

    So we have Catholic ethos schools, yet there is no such thing as a Catholic ethos. But even if there was, it wouldn't really matter, as by and large, Catholics don't adhere to this non-existent ethos in the first place.

    Kylith posted a cartoon earlier which seems way more pertinent to this thread than the funnies.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #970
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,656 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You've made the mistake, as some in the church often do, to think that these are the "big important issues". They are not. Love of God and love of neighbour are the biggies.

    They are the big one's?. Hmm, well they still don't follow through on those so I don't think you are right on those.

    If I want to love somebody or even be friends with them then I treat them as a equal, that very much isn't the case for the RCC.


  • #971
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Nice misquote there BTW, really solidifies your position when you take part of a sentence completely out of context. If you re read my post you will see it is a general statement, not aimed at you in anyway. "Your a Christian BTW" is in reference to those who do not follow or believe the majority (if any) of the churches teachings/doctrines/rules but they do follow the teachings of Christ as they read/interpret them.

    Then you probably shouldn't have used brackets. You should also have used "you're" instead of "your".


  • Advertisement
  • #972
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You've made the mistake, as some in the church often do, to think that these are the "big important issues". They are not. Love of God and love of neighbour are the biggies.

    I am soooo feeling the Lurve.
    DID POPE FRANCIS SAY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS OK?
    BY JOSHUA BOWMAN
    Short Answer: No

    Pope Francis made some impromptu remarks for reporters while returning from World Youth Day, and now headlines across the mainstream media blare that he made some kind of stunning reversal of Catholic teaching. Earlier in the same interview, he half-jokingly said, “I think like a Jesuit.” True to the stereotype of the Society of Jesus, Pope Francis has a very logical mind, so we must pay careful attention to his words. What did Pope Francis actually say (emphasis added)?

    When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they’re our brothers.



    First of all, the supposedly provocative line begins with the word, “if,” and it’s a BIG IF. Most homosexuals do not accept Jesus’ teachings on chastity. Salvation comes from Jesus. Sin is a rejection of salvation. Adultery is a sin. Sex outside of marriage is adultery. The divine sacrament of marriage requires that one man and one woman vow their mutual love, fidelity, and openness to life publicly and before God. Therefore, homosexual sex is a rejection of Jesus. QED.
    http://www.catholicvote.org/did-pope-francis-say-homosexual-behavior-is-ok/


    We accept you as long as you don't have sex...but if you do have sex you have rejected Jesus.

    How very loving....


  • #973
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,179 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    At the extreme end you describe (absolute zero match between person's beliefs and RCC's views). But, let's be honest, most people who identify as catholic do have some match between their own and the RCC's views.

    There is a wealth of ideas/concepts in the Cathecism of the RCC and in the Church's social teaching (See Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching) that most people can get on board with, people of all religions and none.

    So it's never quite 0%. What's it to be? Are you catholic if you agree with 10%, 33%, 49%, 75%, 98%..............or do you have to hit the 100% mark?

    If a person agreed 99.99% with the church but didn't believe that God existed, then they don't even meet the definition of Christian nevermind Roman Catholic.

    I would also think that if a person believed in God+Christ but was essentially opposed to almost all of RCC policies then they're just a Christian rather than Roman Catholic. Would make more sense to find a branch that reflects their own perspective rather than support a group they oppose.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #974
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    smacl wrote: »
    Really? That's not what you were saying earlier though, now is it?

    So we have Catholic ethos schools, yet there is no such thing as a Catholic ethos. But even if there was, it wouldn't really matter, as by and large, Catholics don't adhere to this non-existent ethos in the first place.

    Can you please indicate how one statement you've quoted there contradicts the other. (Seriously, I really, really can't see it). Perhaps you took something from what I said other than what was there.

    When did I say there was no such thing as a catholic ethos??


  • #975
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I am soooo feeling the Lurve

    And robindch says that I am making snide comments?? Hmmmm


  • #976
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    SW wrote: »
    If a person agreed 99.99% with the church but didn't believe that God existed, then they don't even meet the definition of Christian nevermind Roman Catholic.

    I would also think that if a person believed in God+Christ but was essentially opposed to almost all of RCC policies then they're just a Christian rather than Roman Catholic. Would make more sense to find a branch that reflects their own perspective rather than support a group they oppose.

    Would make more sense to you.....


  • #977
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,179 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Would make more sense to you.....
    Correct and right. Do you agree/disagree with what I posted?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #978
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    And robindch says that I am making snide comments?? Hmmmm

    That was sarcasm aimed at the comment that the BIG issue is love of your neighbour. Seems the 'love' has a qualification that ones gay neighbour better not be fornicating or....

    But, if you feel I was in contravention of the forum rules* - Report button is on the left.

    Or you could admit that the article I quoted contradicts your statement re: 'You've made the mistake, as some in the church often do, to think that these are the "big important issues". They are not. Love of God and love of neighbour are the biggies.'






    *But what are rules at the end of the day? Mere guidelines apparently.


  • #979
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    SW wrote: »
    Correct and right. Do you agree/disagree with what I posted?

    Broadly, yes. But the question is, who has the right to tell people what religion they are?


  • #980
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Or you could admit that the article I quoted contradicts your statement re: 'You've made the mistake, as some in the church often do, to think that these are the "big important issues". They are not. Love of God and love of neighbour are the biggies.'

    It actually confirms my view. You're suggesting that an article by some guy negates the view of a pope that we should focus on the basic love thy neighbour stuff rather than (as many in the chuch often do) dwell on more marginal stuff?


  • #981
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    All of the above, in my humble opinion, seem to indicate that the writers would be far more comfortable (crave) a more ordered, clear-cut, black and white view of religious belief from everyone. It would sit better with them and allow better organisation of society.
    Hmm... let me try to be a little clearer.

    289042.png


  • Advertisement
  • #982
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,656 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It actually confirms my view. You're suggesting that an article by some guy negates the view of a pope that we should focus on the basic love thy neighbour stuff rather than (as many in the chuch often do) dwell on more marginal stuff?

    The church's own policy's show that they don't love people like you're trying to claim.

    As I've said, if I want to love somebody or even be friends then I treat them as equal to me. The RCC is incapable of doing this, its own policy's and rules ensure this.


  • #983
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,153 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Can you please indicate how one statement you've quoted there contradicts the other. (Seriously, I really, really can't see it). Perhaps you took something from what I said other than what was there.

    When did I say there was no such thing as a catholic ethos??

    My bad, mis-read one of your posts. Apologies.

    So what exactly is a Catholic ethos if following the teachings of the RCC is seemingly optional and down to the individual? From your previous posts Catholicism seems to be more a matter of identity than religious persuasion.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #984
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It actually confirms my view. You're suggesting that an article by some guy negates the view of a pope that we should focus on the basic love thy neighbour stuff rather than (as many in the chuch often do) dwell on more marginal stuff?

    You don't think the Pope's use of the word 'IF' qualifies his statement somewhat?

    Baring in mind RCC Doctrine - is the author of the article wrong in his interpretation?

    Or are we back to sure, it hardly matters what people actually believe....

    What is the point of Doctrine if no one has to believe it?


  • #985
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    robindch wrote: »
    Hmm... let me try to be a little clearer.

    289042.png

    You asked me earlier to identify posts that indicate that people crave order and box-ticking when it comes to religion. This counts surely..:D

    From the data in the cartoon above anyway Robin, the RCC will have died out all over the world in the next 30-40 years or so. Good for you guys.

    Let's wait and see so shall we, if this c.2000 year old institution will be gone in a generation. I know people have predicted that before, but things are different now...aren't they Robin?

    Lets see what Thomas Babbington MacCauly had to say on the matter, shall we.........
    There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.


  • #986
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You asked me earlier to identify posts that indicate that people crave order and box-ticking when it comes to religion. This counts surely..:D
    Christ, you don't even understand cartoons :rolleyes:

    Can you understand that people laughing at box-ticking is not "box-ticking"?


  • #987
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    robindch wrote: »
    Christ, you don't even understand cartoons :rolleyes:

    Can you understand that people laughing at box-ticking is not "box-ticking"?

    The thrust of the cartoon seems to be that people are laughing that the RCC do not get the answers they would like. Along the lines of what you suggested earlier when you said that people are laughing about members of the RCC not being able to agree on common beliefs. I think you're interpreting the cartoon to your own ends (and maybe me to mine).


  • #988
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    The thrust of the cartoon seems to be that people are laughing that the RCC do not get the answers they would like. Along the lines of what you suggested earlier when you said that people are laughing about members of the RCC not being able to agree on common beliefs. I think you're interpreting the cartoon to your own ends (and maybe me to mine).
    I'm not interpreting anything. I'm pointing out that the RCC and their "believers" are hypocrites.

    Now, I find that funny because the RCC and their believers think that they're a better sort of outfit and better sorts of people than the rest of us.

    Can you understand this?


  • #989
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm not interpreting anything.

    You are. You're intepreting the cartoonists point of view.

    robindch wrote: »
    I'm pointing out that the RCC and their "believers" are hypocrites.

    That's a huge, sweeping generalisation.
    robindch wrote: »
    Now, I find that funny because the RCC and their believers think that they're a better sort of outfit and better sorts of people than the rest of us.

    Again a huge generalisation...."the RCC and their believers think....."
    robindch wrote: »
    Can you understand this?

    I can certainly understand what you're saying. I simply don't agree with it.


  • #990
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,656 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    That's a huge, sweeping generalisation.

    But they are hypocrites,

    People that don't strictly follow the RCC rules and doctrines are hypocrites for not following the faith properly and picking and choosing the word of god to suit their lives.

    The Vatican are hypocrites for the way the covered up sex abuse cases, refused to compensate victims and instead of taking ownership for their actions the pope says that all Catholics should feel shame about the matter....nice way to shift it away from the Vatican.

    Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, the pope included. All talk, no meaningful actions and he's even confirmed that the inequality in the catholic church will continue. So much for love thy neighbour.


  • Advertisement
  • #991
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Cabaal wrote: »
    But they are hypocrites,

    People that don't strictly follow the RCC rules and doctrines are hypocrites for not following the faith properly and picking and choosing the word of god to suit their lives.

    The Vatican are hypocrites for the way the covered up sex abuse cases, refused to compensate victims and instead of taking ownership for their actions the pope says that all Catholics should feel shame about the matter....nice way to shift it away from the Vatican.

    Nothing bit a bunch of hypocrites, the pope included. All talk, no meaningful actions.

    What you're trying to say perhaps, is that MOST of them are hypocrites. Robindch and you are wrong to suggest they are all hypocrites becasue you don't know the beliefs and private lives of 1.2 billion people. Hence, it was a sweeping generalisation.


Advertisement