Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

19-01-2014 02:19PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't really care what you think. Either support your claim about me with reference or withdraw it, as Robin demanded of another user in a similar situation . It's not that complicated..

I have done so twice. You refuse to answer the simple question because it addresses your point.

You didn't say the words "christian country" but it's clear from what you have been claiming as well as from the posts I indicated.
You are upset that the president didn't mention Christians because you think that Christianity has a special privileged place in the country, or in other words, is a Christian country.
If there is another reason, please elaborate. If you aren't going to provide one then the above stands as an answer to your question.

So to illustrate this can you please point to the exact quote where some one said this:

In fact, according to Mark and friend there is no such thing as a cultural Jew at all.

Brown Bomber · 19-01-2014 02:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

I have done so twice. You refuse to answer the simple question because it addresses your point.

You didn't say the words "christian country" but it's clear from what you have been claiming as well as from the posts I indicated.
You are upset that the president didn't mention Christians because you think that Christianity has a special privileged place in the country, or in other words, is a Christian country.
If there is another reason, please elaborate. If you aren't going to provide one then the above stands as an answer to your question.

So to illustrate this can you please point to the exact quote where some one said this:

For clarity. You cannot support your false claim and yet refuse to withdraw it. Typical.

On reflection it would have been more accurate for me to say "A cultural Jew is not a Jew at all".

I believe I am still waiting for a precise answer to the question as to whether drug-taking, hard-drinking, and gambling Muslims are actually Muslim at all.

Mark Hamill · 19-01-2014 02:27PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which is fine, except Christ is already part of Christmas. You, I and whomever else are free to reject this on a personal level. The problem is that Higgins wasn't speaking on any personal level but as the President of a state which is overwhelmingly CHRISTian in a CHRISTmas message. He has to go out his way to remove something which is already there by definition.

What difference does it make that the state is overwhelmingly christian if it is not a christian state? If it is not a christian state then it is a secular state and if it is a secular state, then the leader of said state is under no obligation to single out the religious aspect of a, by definition, secular holiday in any speeches.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you just answer the question please? Would you find it strange if a MLK address on MLK day didn't make any reference to MLK Jr?

I did answer the question, you aren't comparing like-for-like at all:
A different day, celebrating a man who lived in the last century, and that didn't appropriate an already existing pagan festival to persuade pagans to change religion, so not really an apt comparison at all.
Besides, MLK day is a day which, by definition, only exists to celebrate MLK's birthday, unlike xmas, which has multiple definitions.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And here we go again...

Do you have a problem with "tabloidy rags" as sources? If no double-standard exists why haven't we heard a peep from you about the "tabloidy rag", the irishcentral.com being used as source?

You know, if you keep not actually reading what I wrote, then I will just have to keep reposting my posts wholesale. As I already said in relation to tabloid rags and robindch referencing irishcentral:
He quoted an Irish Central article because it quoted a Irish Times poll (presumably because the Irish Times poll is in their archive behind a pay wall), and it was one of 4 references quoted in that post. Are we also going to have go through what the phrase "main source" means too?
Besides, robindch didn't just quote irishcentral, he quoted 3 other sources in that post.

The more you keep repeating you arguments without addressing why you are wrong, the more ways it will be pointed out that you are wrong BB.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As I am sure you are well aware using Wikipedia is a cop-out. If you are prepared to support your claim link to the actual sources and copy and paste the relevant sections....Y'know.......Like I did for you........

How is wikipeida a cop-out? Oh, because it proves that you are talking bull? Wikipedia is a source of references, with an article that attempts to explain them in as impartial a way as possible. By quoting wikipedia, I am quoting all the sources on that page for you.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

FFs. I said witness testimony is admissable in court, not the articles. So we are back into the realm of conspiracy theories wild speculation to explain away evidence that doesn't suit our argument then?

But those articles don't contain verifiable witness testimony, most of it is second hand or from semi-anonymous sources. Its not a conspiracy theory to point out that those stories only appear in those articles and not in official or reliable sources.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh, "may have"? That changes everything.

So if you believe you can be forgiven for your sins, y'know the way Christians do, then sinning, for example, doesn't make you not Christian/Muslim etc?

Isn't this the opposite to what been saying all along? You said that people who self-identify as Catholic and don't go to mass (sin) aren't Catholic.

Could you make up your mind please?

How can you claim that all christians believe in specific sins in the same thread as claiming that anyone can call themselves a christian simply because they want to? How do you know that christians even consider those things sins?

Mark Hamill · 19-01-2014 02:29PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Consistently applied you didn't attend any "Jewish" Christmas parties because any Jew attending a Christmas party instantly becomes dejudaised.

Why would Jews attending a secular holiday party become dejudaised?

Mark Hamill · 19-01-2014 02:32PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For clarity. You cannot support your false claim and yet refuse to withdraw it. Typical.

For clarity, you have been asked probably over a dozen times that if Ireland is not a christian country, why should the secular head of the secular state have to name drop Christ in a speech on a secular holiday, that happens to have religious significance for some people. You have yet to answer this.

19-01-2014 02:34PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For clarity. You cannot support your false claim and yet refuse to withdraw it. Typical.

I did support. You ignored it.

If you address the point, then I'll withdraw it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On reflection it would have been more accurate for me to say "A cultural Jew is not a Jew at all".

Please point to this quote.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe I am still waiting for a precise answer to the question as to whether drug-taking, hard-drinking, and gambling Muslims are actually Muslim at all.

Lol I have clearly answered this several times very clearly and directly.

So for the precise answer to whether drug-taking, hard-drinking, and gambling Muslims are actually Muslim at all it is here for the third time:

I don't know because I don't know their beliefs and I don't know the defining beliefs that make some one Muslim.

As I explained, them doing sinful things does not preclude them from being Muslim. I never said or implied that it would.

What part of that do you disagree with or not understand?

Brown Bomber · 19-01-2014 02:52PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why would Jews attending a secular holiday party become dejudaised?

I didn't say they would, you have cut my quote so as to give a false impression. I said that using your logic - which is anything outside total obedience to the Church instantly excludes from being a member of the church.

Since you are such a stickler for blindly obeying the the diktats of the Church to justify your own membership I will use Israel's Chief Rabbi to answer your question.

JERUSALEM (AP)-- Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau on Tuesday urged Jews in Israel not to celebrate Christmas or New Year's Day, warning that such observances threatened the identity of the Jewish state.

Lau encouraged Christian Israeli Arabs, foreign workers and immigrants to mark the holidays but told Jewish families not to ``be swept into keeping a way of life that is not their own, while obliterated and losing their self-respect.''

...

Why should we have anything to do with Christmas or New Year's Eve, in the shade of the Christmas tree?!'' Lau asked in a statement issued Tuesday, Christmas Eve.

Brown Bomber · 19-01-2014 02:56PM

King Mob wrote: »

I did support. You ignored it.

If you address the point, then I'll withdraw it.

Please point to this quote.

Lol I have clearly answered this several times very clearly and directly.

So for the precise answer to whether drug-taking, hard-drinking, and gambling Muslims are actually Muslim at all it is here for the third time:

I don't know because I don't know their beliefs and I don't know the defining beliefs that make some one Muslim.

As I explained, them doing sinful things does not preclude them from being Muslim. I never said or implied that it would.

What part of that do you disagree with or not understand?

I have stated plainly that the President omitting mentioning Jesus does not bother me on a personal level. I have never stated that Ireland is a Christian or Catholic country, don't believe it is, nor would I know how to define such a thing.

If you believe you can go against the teaching of the Church and still be a member of that same church could you please explain this to Mark Hamill as he doesn't seem to understand this.

19-01-2014 03:04PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have stated plainly that the President omitting mentioning Jesus does not bother me on a personal level. I have never stated that Ireland is a Christian or Catholic country, don't believe it is, nor would I know how to define such a thing.

So what is your problem with it? Why should he mention Jesus?
Is he obliged to? If so why?

If you think it is because Christianity has a special, privileged position in Ireland, then you are claiming it's a christian country.

If you have another reason, please outline it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you believe you can go against the teaching of the Church and still be a member of that same church could you please explain this to Mark Hamill as he doesn't seem to understand this.

Where has he said this?

It took me 3 goes repeating the same thing for you to acknowledge I answered your question. You clearly are not reading posts very carefully. So perhaps Mark understands it very well, you are just not understanding, or reading his posts in your haste to disagree.

Brown Bomber · 19-01-2014 03:29PM

King Mob wrote: »

So what is your problem with it? Why should he mention Jesus?
Is he obliged to? If so why?

If you think it is because Christianity has a special, privileged position in Ireland, then you are claiming it's a christian country.

If you have another reason, please outline it.

Have done already, numerous times.

King Mob wrote: »

Where has he said this?

Here is a single example.

No, it is not. Officially, the census may tell us that ~84% of irish people self-identify as catholic, but given how the majority of said people don't go to weekly mass (one of the central requirements of catholics, according to the catechism of the RCC, see sections 2180 and 2181 here), this means that their self-identification is not accurate.

19-01-2014 03:50PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have done already, numerous times.

No you haven't. You're free to point out where you think you have.
Otherwise you're going to be happy with the answer I gave you.

That's why I think you believe the country is a christian one even if you don't use those exact words. I'm open to correction, but I'm not going to apologise or withdraw something without it being corrected.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is a single example.

That doesn't say what you says it says.
It's not about going against the teachings of a church, it's about agreeing or disagreeing with one of the defining characteristics of that religion.

Two of those characteristics being attending mass and believing in the authority of the church.
You seem desperate to avoid the points actually being made.

Can you explain to us the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, or perhaps the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims?
Cause from your current position that they are simply labels that you can apply to yourself for any reason and without requirement, then they are all exactly the same.

Gordon · 19-01-2014 03:56PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How is any abuse at all within the topic of the thread?

Seems to me to be simple mud-slinging.

As you seem to be ok with responding via ambiguous imagery:

Brown Bomber · 19-01-2014 04:00PM

King Mob wrote: »

No you haven't. You're free to point out where you think you have.
Otherwise you're going to be happy with the answer I gave you.

That's why I think you believe the country is a christian one even if you don't use those exact words. I'm open to correction, but I'm not going to apologise or withdraw something without it being corrected.

I've given you ample opportunity to do the decent thing. Unfortunately, despite you not being able to quote me on what you falsely claim I said you opt to weasel your way out of it. I can't force you to act with integrity so there is really nothing else to say.

King Mob wrote: »

That doesn't say what you says it says.
It's not about going against the teachings of a church, it's about agreeing or disagreeing with one of the defining characteristics of that religion.

Two of those characteristics being attending mass and believing in the authority of the church.
You seem desperate to avoid the points actually being made.

Can you explain to us the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, or perhaps the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims?
Cause from your current position that they are simply labels that you can apply to yourself for any reason and without requirement, then they are all exactly the same.

I really wish you lot would at least try to have some kind of consistent argument instead of making it up as you go along.

You just said that a Christian can sin and still be and still be Christian. Correct? I just quoted Mark Hamill as saying exactly the opposite.

He says that Catholics who don't go to mass (sin) are wrong to call themselves Catholics.

So when are you going to correct him on this? I must have told him the error of his ways ten times now.

19-01-2014 04:08PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've given you ample opportunity to do the decent thing. Unfortunately, despite you not being able to quote me on what you falsely claim I said you opt to weasel your way out of it. I can't force you to act with integrity so there is really nothing else to say.

I've explained to you why I made the claim several times. You have not addressed this and are instead resorting to petty accusations to cover the fact you have not and cannot address it.
So by all means pretend I have not done so. I'm sure everyone will believe you.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I really wish you lot would at least try to have some kind of consistent argument instead of making it up as you go along.

You just said that a Christian can sin and still be and still be Christian. Correct? I just quoted Mark Hamill as saying exactly the opposite.

He says that Catholics who don't go to mass (sin) are wrong to call themselves Catholics.

So when are you going to correct him on this? I must have told him the error of his ways ten times now.

No he didn't I've explained why he didn't.

It's not about going against the teachings of a church, it's about agreeing or disagreeing with one of the defining characteristics of that religion.

Two of those characteristics being attending mass and believing in the authority of the church.

Also you have avoided the question that illustrates the point you are missing:

Can you explain to us the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, or perhaps the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims?
Cause from your current position that they are simply labels that you can apply to yourself for any reason and without requirement, then they are all exactly the same.

At this stage it's becoming far easier to just point you back to the points I've already made and you've ignored than it is to retype them for you to ignore them all over again.

Mark Hamill · 19-01-2014 04:23PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I didn't say they would, you have cut my quote so as to give a false impression. I said that using your logic - which is anything outside total obedience to the Church instantly excludes from being a member of the church.

My logic applies to christians, not jews, you do know the difference right?

Mark Hamill · 19-01-2014 04:35PM

King Mob wrote: »

He says that Catholics who don't go to mass (sin) are wrong to call themselves Catholics.

No he didn't I've explained why he didn't.

It has been pointed out before to him. The issue is not sinning and still remaining catholic, its people not even recognising the things they do as sins because they reject (or are ignorant of) most catholic dogma. I can accept that catholics/mulsims/jews are only humans and will do things despite ultimately believing they are sinning, but most of catholics in this country support gay rights, abortion, access to contraception etc. because they think they are right to do so. Most catholics in this country do not even realise they are obliged to go to weekly mass, that's why the numbers from my link that BB quotes are so low.

King Mob wrote: »

At this stage it's becoming far easier to just point you back to the points I've already made and you've ignored than it is to retype them for you to ignore them all over again.

I've also pointed this out to him before :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber · 19-01-2014 05:28PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My logic applies to christians, not jews, you do know the difference right?

Ah, I see. Your logic is inconsistent. You have one set of rules for Christians and one set of rules for Jews. Is there any particular reason for this?

Brown Bomber · 19-01-2014 05:38PM

King Mob wrote: »

I've explained to you why I made the claim several times. You have not addressed this and are instead resorting to petty accusations to cover the fact you have not and cannot address it.
So by all means pretend I have not done so. I'm sure everyone will believe you.

No he didn't I've explained why he didn't.

Also you have avoided the question that illustrates the point you are missing:

At this stage it's becoming far easier to just point you back to the points I've already made and you've ignored than it is to retype them for you to ignore them all over again.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed it the first time. Intoxication and gambling are expressly forbidden by God/Allah through the Prophet Muhammed as codified in the Quran. I actually quoted you the verse. It's a mortal sin to not go to mass. It is haram to be intoxicated and gamble. These are two different words for the same thing from the respective Catholic and Muslim's perspective.

Whereas a Catholic not going to mass is not being obedient to the Church a Muslim drinking alcohol is not being obedient to God himself. It is as much a "defining characteristic" no matter how you try and dress it up. You have no point.

Mark Hamill · 19-01-2014 06:02PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah, I see. Your logic is inconsistent. You have one set of rules for Christians and one set of rules for Jews. Is there any particular reason for this?

Because Christians have one set of rules and Jews have another? Seriously, you do understand that they are different religions, right?

20-01-2014 12:06AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed it the first time. Intoxication and gambling are expressly forbidden by God/Allah through the Prophet Muhammed as codified in the Quran. I actually quoted you the verse. It's a mortal sin to not go to mass. It is haram to be intoxicated and gamble. These are two different words for the same thing from the respective Catholic and Muslim's perspective.

Whereas a Catholic not going to mass is not being obedient to the Church a Muslim drinking alcohol is not being obedient to God himself. It is as much a "defining characteristic" no matter how you try and dress it up. You have no point.

And I have explained this several times.
It's not about sinning or doing anything. It's about what the person believes.

Part of being a Catholic includes having to go to mass every week.
If a person believes this, but fails to do so, it's simply them sinning.
However if a person believes that they do not need to go to mass at all (or simply don't know that they are supposed to), then their beliefs fall out of alignment with Catholicism.
If they also do not believe in the other characteristic beliefs, then it makes less and less sense to call them Catholic.

In the example of the Muslims you keep pointing to, we also have the possibilities you are dismissing out of hand, to hypocritically adhere to a singluar unmoving belief that applies to all Muslims.
Is it not possible that these guys knew it was a sin, but also believed it was a justifiable sin or that they were somehow exempt?
Because if you are saying it is not possible, then you are saying that there are set rules to religions that cannot be changed by the individual.

And again you ignore the question that highlights the massive flaw in your postion:
Please explain the differences between Protestant and Catholic or between Sunni and Shiite.

Brown Bomber · 20-01-2014 09:20AM

King Mob wrote: »

And I have explained this several times.
It's not about sinning or doing anything. It's about what the person believes.

Part of being a Catholic includes having to go to mass every week.
If a person believes this, but fails to do so, it's simply them sinning.
However if a person believes that they do not need to go to mass at all (or simply don't know that they are supposed to), then their beliefs fall out of alignment with Catholicism.
If they also do not believe in the other characteristic beliefs, then it makes less and less sense to call them Catholic.

In the example of the Muslims you keep pointing to, we also have the possibilities you are dismissing out of hand, to hypocritically adhere to a singluar unmoving belief that applies to all Muslims.
Is it not possible that these guys knew it was a sin, but also believed it was a justifiable sin or that they were somehow exempt?
Because if you are saying it is not possible, then you are saying that there are set rules to religions that cannot be changed by the individual.

And again you ignore the question that highlights the massive flaw in your postion:
Please explain the differences between Protestant and Catholic or between Sunni and Shiite.

One step at a time.

So we are actually making progress then, incredibly.

We are in broad agreement then.

Based on what you have just said:

Part of being a Catholic includes having to go to mass every week.
If a person believes this, but fails to do so, it's simply them sinning.
However if a person believes that they do not need to go to mass at all (or simply don't know that they are supposed to), then their beliefs fall out of alignment with Catholicism.

Explain how Mark's claim that there are X amount of Catholics in Ireland because X amount of people attend mass regularly is valid when we have no way of knowing from the survey who is "sinning" (still Catholic) from their own perspective, who isn't aware that they are "sinning" (still Catholic) and who is aware but reject the Church's position.

Brown Bomber · 20-01-2014 09:22AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because Christians have one set of rules and Jews have another? Seriously, you do understand that they are different religions, right?

OK, so you do then accept the "rules" of the religions over your own rules then? Fantastic. Then you also accept the authority of the religions to decide who is and isn't a member, assuming the member wants in.

20-01-2014 09:25AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

One step at a time.

So we are actually making progress then, incredibly.

No, I am not going to explain another person's point to you when it is exceedingly clear and has been explained to you before.
Especially when you are being condescending about it while ignoring the question I've asked you at least 3 times.

Please explain the differences between Protestant and Catholic or between Sunni and Shiite.

I Heart Internet · 20-01-2014 10:15AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Who wants it? Christians? I thought we cant claim that they are all against gay marriage and divorce but we can claim they want this mysterious ethos that nobody can explain?

No. Parents. Parents want it. Not all, but many.

I Heart Internet · 20-01-2014 10:24AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In Uganda, the Pope bless the woman who wrote the law they tried to bring in that would make homosexual acts punishable by death.

A quick glance over the internet will clarrify for you that the Pope (Benedict) met the politician in question in an audience, the same way he meets many hundreds each week. No blessing was given and no approval was given.

But "pope blesses hate peddler" is a catchy headline alright.

The Pope meets lots of unsavoury politicians. Part of the job of diplomacy.

robindch · 20-01-2014 10:51AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe I am still waiting for a precise answer to the question as to whether drug-taking, hard-drinking, and gambling Muslims are actually Muslim at all.

As with people who self-identify as catholic when they don't agree with most or all of the membership criteria, it seems that islamics do the exact same thing.

So yes, the Tsarnaev brothers were just as islamic as the people who claim they're catholic are actually catholic.

Good point.

shruikan2553 · 20-01-2014 11:10AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. Parents. Parents want it. Not all, but many.

How many? And what is it that they want about a catholic ethos? Nobody seems to know what a catholic ethos is but there are many people who want one some how.

Brown Bomber · 20-01-2014 11:25AM

King Mob wrote: »

No, I am not going to explain another person's point to you when it is exceedingly clear and has been explained to you before.

OK. Give your own opinion.

To quote you again:

Part of being a Catholic includes having to go to mass every week.
If a person believes this, but fails to do so, it's simply them sinning.
However if a person believes that they do not need to go to mass at all (or simply don't know that they are supposed to), then their beliefs fall out of alignment with Catholicism.

Does a survey of mass-goers give conclusive proof of the number of Catholics in Ireland when by your own admission not all Catholics attend mass?

King Mob wrote: »

Especially when you are being condescending about it while ignoring the question I've asked you at least 3 times.

I apologise if I have come across as condescending. Though maybe you might understand my frustration seeing as I've made your exact point above 2 weeks ago.

I've been ignoring it because it's irrelevant to what we are discussing, but if you insist, and with the understanding that I am no expert.

The difference between Shia and Sunni is a split which occured due to conflict over the lineage of Muhammed. They recognise different ahaditha based on this. Why it is irrelevant is that all Muslims follow the Quran, which is divine to them. The ahaditha are written by man and are secondary to the Quran. As gambling, intoxication etc are strictly and unabiguously forbidden by the Quran EVERY MUSLIM that goes against this is "sinning". Therefore it doesn't matter at all if these unislamic "Muslims" are Shia or Sunni.

... Or stops becoming Muslim when they do according to Mark's faulty logic.

Brown Bomber · 20-01-2014 11:33AM

robindch wrote: »

As with people who self-identify as catholic when they don't agree with most or all of the membership criteria, it seems that islamics do the exact same thing.

So yes, the Tsarnaev brothers were just as islamic as the people who claim they're catholic are actually catholic.

Good point.

So you believe

1- "unislamic" Muslims and "uncatholic" Catholics are actually Catholics and Muslims
2- "unislamic" Muslims and "uncatholic" Catholics aren't actually Catholics and Muslims
or
3-Do you just pick and choose based on whatever suits you at the time

swampgas · 20-01-2014 11:36AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. Parents. Parents want it. Not all, but many.

I think it's true that many parents want to be able to get their kids into one of the local Catholic schools, but not necessarily because of the ethos. From talking to my friends and family (none of whom are very religious), it seems that many parents want to be able to send their kids to the same schools as their friends, if the friends are going to the local RCC school, then that's where they want their kids to go too. There is a certain amount of "network effect" going on.

Also, I have noticed that some parents I know are very concerned that their kids won't be "different", and sending their kids to a "normal" school ties in with this.

The only parents I know that actively want their kids NOT to go to an RCC school are those who very much don't want their kids indoctrinated, and who didn't get married in a church and who didn't christen their kids, etc.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments