Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 03:09AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But the sacrament of baptism brings grace, even if it is done for less than ideal reasons, so that would be a plus (for the child).

{{citation very much needed}}

Now if believing this were one's yardstick for "Catholic", I'd wager a sum of good money on this not being a Catholic-majority country. (Obviously a slightly harder threshold than "Christian majority", but I think even if we normalised for that I'd still take the bet.)

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 03:19AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It'll get sorted in the future though. Seems the only solution is for any religious person to justify their own self-identification in the census is to hand in their mass-attendance logto the CSO , give a public loyalty oath and answer a series of questions on their religion written by hardliners - either religious fundamentalists or atheists. Seems be no distance between them on this at all.

I must be a "softliner", then, as I think (as I said before) that the Kirchensteuer would be going more than far enough.

Or maybe "Which religious creed can you recite and mean it?"

Probably should have DNA tests as well to make sure people aren't answering the ethnicity question "wrong" as well.

Those would be interesting exercises, but ethnic identity 101 is that self- and mutual- identification is a key aspect.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 03:23AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Most catholics don't crave the sense of order and box-ticking that some people on here do.

This from the person arguing endlessly that literally ticking a box on the census form is an exercise in religious freedom, and a one-stop-shop replacement for all the hot air needlessly wasted on all those church councils, not to mention the blood spilt in the wars of religion...

Delirium · 17-01-2014 08:50AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'd agree but you are taking it to extremes. A Catholic that uses contraception is still a Catholic, for example.

Catholic by name, Protestant by actions.

If it helps I can list off some things that should exclude you from being Catholic, and I am not expert but this should cover some of the bases. I should point out it is flat out rejection, not ignorance nor doubt.

Belief in God. Belief in a soul. Belief in some form of afterlife. Belief in sin.
Belief in Jesus, his son. His Crucifixion and reserruction.

Based on that, the majority of the people I know that identified as Catholic in the census were wrong to do so based on that criteria.

CramCycle · 17-01-2014 09:31AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

You are correct, apologies.

vibe666 wrote: »

grand so, it doesn't matter what people actually believe or do as long as they tick the right boxes on a form.

when it comes time to send my children to school and i pick the best school closest to were we live that just happens to have a catholic 'ethos', i'll just tick catholic in the box on the enrollment form to make sure they are at the top of the list and when the school asks for a baptismal cert i'll tell them that my children weren't baptised, but it doesn't matter because they can't tell us what we believe and in our hearts we believe we're catholics and that should be enough because they have no right to tell anyone what they are or aren't. :rolleyes:

I was confused about this baptism cert malarky for school, my understanding is that unlike the other RCC sacraments, anyone can baptise anyone else. I remember getting drunk and baptising my (ex) athiest gf because she was annoying me. Do you actually need a cert?

catallus wrote: »

A pagan killed my father.

A catholic killed my uncle, I don't hold it against Catholicism, why do you hold it against Pagans.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 10:13AM

CramCycle wrote: »

I was confused about this baptism cert malarky for school, my understanding is that unlike the other RCC sacraments, anyone can baptise anyone else. I remember getting drunk and baptising my (ex) athiest gf because she was annoying me. Do you actually need a cert?

As I understand it, any catholic (maybe any christian) can baptise a person, if necessary. It is a matter of simple using water, making the sign of a cross on the head of a person and saying..."I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. Amen."

In the normal course of events though, baptism happen in a church with a cleric and there's a cert put in the file.

Baptism is a sacrament that is common to all christians, I think....by shich I mean, if you were e.g. a catholic and decided to become CoI, there's no suggestion that your original baptism wasn't entirely valid - and vice versa.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 10:16AM

SW wrote: »

Catholic by name, Protestant by actions.

No. Catholic by name. Human by nature.

Would you say a muslim who eats some pork is no longer a muslim, but is say a Christian or Atheist? That's a very fundamentalist approach and not very humane.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 10:19AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

This from the person arguing endlessly that literally ticking a box on the census form is an exercise in religious freedom, and a one-stop-shop replacement for all the hot air needlessly wasted on all those church councils, not to mention the blood spilt in the wars of religion...

I was referring to the type of approach used by SW immeadiately above.

The notion that if you cannot tick the "never masterbate" box you can not possible be a catholic and must be a protestant. Religion as a kind of Cosmipolitan magazine quiz.

"If you've answered all As, you are a catholic. If you've answered mostly Bs, you are a protestant. If you've answered mostly Cs........we will pray for you."

Delirium · 17-01-2014 10:23AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. Catholic by name. Human by nature.

Would you say a muslim who eats some pork is no longer a muslim, but is say a Christian or Atheist? That's a very fundamentalist approach and not very humane.

It's fundamentalist of me to say that using condoms are not the actions of a Roman Catholic? Take it up with the Vatican, I didn't create the prohibition of condoms within the RCC.

I'd say they're not acting like a Muslim since their religion doesn't allow for the eating of pork. In the same way I already said that a Catholic using condoms is acting more like a Protestant than a Catholic.

Zubeneschamali · 17-01-2014 10:23AM

catallus wrote: »

Look, the only thing that is important for any Catholic (or any Christian) is belief in the coming Resurrection of Christ. Nothing else matters.

This is a leg-pull. Christians believe Christ rose from the dead about 2000 years ago, anyone who thinks his Resurrection is still coming is not a Christian.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 10:24AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

I say "let's just say state-funded", and let's be done with these aircastle of dubious semantics.

Absolutely. "State-funded" is a perfectly fine description for all schools in Ireland, as the state pays the wages of all fee-paying schools as well.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 10:28AM

SW wrote: »

It's fundamentalist of me to say that using condoms are not the actions of a Roman Catholic? Take it up with the Vatican, I didn't create the prohibition of condoms within the RCC.

I'd say they're not acting like a Muslim since their religion doesn't allow for the eating of pork. In the same way I already said that a Catholic using condoms is acting more like a Protestant than a Catholic.

That they are acting like a protestant or anything else does not mean we have any say in what they believe themselves to be or what they tell the world they are.

Delirium · 17-01-2014 10:33AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That they are acting like a protestant or anything else does not mean we have any say in what they believe themselves to be or what they tell the world they are.

I never said we have, I am still only questioning why people would incorrectly label themselves as something that clearly don't behave in manner of that label.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 10:37AM

SW wrote: »

I never said we have, I am still only questioning why people would incorrectly label themselves as something that clearly don't behave in manner of that label.

Here's the crux of it. You say that they "incorrectly" label themselves. They think differently.

Now, who do you think would be in the best position to judge what a person believes? You or them?

Delirium · 17-01-2014 10:45AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Here's the crux of it. You say that they "incorrectly" label themselves. They think differently.

Now, who do you think would be in the best position to judge what a person believes? You or them?

Me:P

Serously though, it's not a subjective question. The RCC is opposed to the use of condoms, ergo using condoms is not the expected behaviour of a Roman Catholic.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 10:49AM

SW wrote: »

Me:P

Serously though, it's not a subjective question. The RCC is opposed to the use of condoms, ergo using condoms is not the expected behaviour of a Roman Catholic.

Just because "it is not the expected behaviour of an X" does not mean a person cannot be an X.

People are absolutely free to decide for themselves what religion they are. I really can't believe I have to say this in Atheism and Agnosticism forum.

Criticising people's declaration of who they are is busy-bodyism at its absolute worst.

swampgas · 17-01-2014 10:50AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Here's the crux of it. You say that they "incorrectly" label themselves. They think differently.

Now, who do you think would be in the best position to judge what a person believes? You or them?

Surely a label is supposed to describe something? If I tell everyone I'm a vegetarian, I won't be surprised when I'm offered vegeburgers and not beefburgers when I'm at a BBQ.

What's the point of telling the world you're a Catholic if most of what the rest of the world understands as Catholic is not what you believe?

I can understand people saying that they are "spiritual", or "Christian", but to claim to be a specific denomination - e.g. Catholic, CofI, Presbyterian, etc., seems to be somewhat misleading, if you don't conform to that denomination's beliefs.

Again, the question is one of motivation: why would someone want to call themselves a Catholic, when they clearly don't believe what the RCC says they should believe?

Zubeneschamali · 17-01-2014 10:51AM

SW wrote: »

The RCC is opposed to the use of condoms, ergo using condoms is not the expected behaviour of a Roman Catholic.

You are mixing up two things: the heirarchy/bureaucracy of the church (the Pope, the Catechism, all the top-down stuff) and what actual Catholics believe.

The two are not always related, but that doesn't mean the heirarchy is "right" and the ordinary folks are "wrong". The church is the members of the church, and they believe what they believe, whatever the Pope says.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 10:54AM

swampgas wrote: »

seems to be somewhat misleading, if you don't conform to that denomination's beliefs.

It's all about conforming isn't it.

No room is this world for anyhting that isn't black or whate. No siree bob.

swampgas wrote: »

Again, the question is one of motivation: why would someone want to call themselves a Catholic, when they clearly don't believe what the RCC says they should believe?

Why? Because it makes them happy? Why do you do things? Do you ask "but what will policy makers make of this?" before you do anything in life?

Delirium · 17-01-2014 10:58AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Just because "it is not the expected behaviour of an X" does not mean a person cannot be an X.

Actually it can do. If they reject the existence of God, then there is no way they can be Roman Catholic realisitically.

People are absolutely free to decide for themselves what religion they are. I really can't believe I have to say this in Atheism and Agnosticism forum.

Haven't suggested otherwise.

Criticising people's declaration of who they are is busy-bodyism at its absolute worst.

How? These are anonymous people. It's not as if we've hunted down these people to harrang them.

swampgas · 17-01-2014 11:00AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are mixing up two things: the heirarchy/bureaucracy of the church (the Pope, the Catechism, all the top-down stuff) and what actual Catholics believe.

The two are not always related, but that doesn't mean the heirarchy is "right" and the ordinary folks are "wrong". The church is the members of the church, and they believe what they believe, whatever the Pope says.

Well, it would be nice if all those Catholics who disagree with the Pope and Bishops actually got up off their bums and let the world know that the hierarchy doesn't speak for them.

Remember the abortion hearings recently? There were representatives of the RCC there, giving their view on why abortion was always wrong. Where were all the cultural catholics that disagree with the official RCC stance?

Silence by the cultural catholic majority in this instance is tacit approval of the formal RCC position.

IMO if you want to claim to be a Catholic, when you disagree with the sometimes hateful nonsense issuing from the Vatican, then you have a moral obligation to publicly make it clear that you do disagree with the Vatican.

Otherwise why shouldn't I continue to judge self-proclaimed Catholics by the messaging coming from the Vatican?

Zubeneschamali · 17-01-2014 11:01AM

SW wrote: »

Actually it can do. If they reject the existence of God, then there is no way they can be Roman Catholic realisitically.

Says you.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 11:03AM

swampgas wrote: »

Well, it would be nice if all those Catholics who disagree with the Pope and Bishops actually got up off their bums and let the world know that the hierarchy doesn't speak for them.

Nice for who? You? Why should people do anything if they don't want to?

Delirium · 17-01-2014 11:05AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Says you.

I'm all ears if you want to explain why what I said is wrong.

Zubeneschamali · 17-01-2014 11:07AM

SW wrote: »

I'm all ears if you want to explain why what I said is wrong.

I have heard a parish priest state during a sermon that he doesn't believe in God.

pauldla · 17-01-2014 11:10AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I have heard a parish priest state during a sermon that he doesn't believe in God.

Was it an older priest, something of a misanthrope, said 'feck off' a lot?

Zubeneschamali · 17-01-2014 11:12AM

pauldla wrote: »

Was it an older priest, something of a misanthrope, said 'feck off' a lot?

No, although I understand he was dying from cancer at the time.

Delirium · 17-01-2014 11:17AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I have heard a parish priest state during a sermon that he doesn't believe in God.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, although I understand he was dying from cancer at the time.

Leads to the question as to whether he was faking it the whole time he was a priest or was it a reaction to having cancer?

Zubeneschamali · 17-01-2014 11:26AM

SW wrote: »

Leads to the question as to whether he was faking it the whole time

People who identify themselves as Catholics believe a wide range of things. This is an undeniable fact.

Your opinion that they are not "really" Catholics, or are "faking it" is not a fact.

CramCycle · 17-01-2014 11:33AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As I understand it, any catholic (maybe any christian) can baptise a person,

I did not think you had to be a Christian, I thought anyone could do it,

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Just because "it is not the expected behaviour of an X" does not mean a person cannot be an X.

What it means is they are not X, they could turn into an X but at the moment in time, they are not. They can also call themselves X, no issues there, it maybe wrong and misleading but they can still do it, I won't force them to stop. I might point out the issues calling yourself X when in fact you are an L may create.

Criticising people's declaration of who they are is busy-bodyism at its absolute worst.

Your missing the point, I don't care what anyone self identifies as, I care that incorrectly self identifying on the census means that certain policies or actions of the government may be influenced under the assumption that this is what the majority of the country believe/support whether they do or not.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments