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…4445474950…70

Comments

  • #1382
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    swampgas wrote: »
    I think the term "catholic" in "catholic priest" is simply defining which denomination of priest he is, rather than being a description of his religion (although that should be a given). The church can always defrock priests, and then they are ex-catholic priests (if that), which is as close to disowning as the church ever seems to get.

    Defrocked priests are still catholics. Excommunicated catholics are still catholics.


  • #1383
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No. You've got it just right. Even the very, very, very worst of people may claim to be catholics. For such a meddlesome, discriminatory church, we take pretty much everyone.
    So everybody gets to define the term "catholic" themselves and nobody need agree on anything at all? Just whatever you're having yourself?


  • #1384
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,644 ✭✭✭swampgas


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Defrocked priests are still catholics. Excommunicated catholics are still catholics.

    But only if they self-identify as such? Suppose the pope declared himself an atheist (and renounced Catholicsm) and went off to live in a commune, would you still consider him to be a Catholic?


  • #1385
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No. You've got it just right. Even the very, very, very worst of people may claim to be catholics.

    For such a meddlesome, discriminatory church, we take pretty much everyone.

    So "catholic" actually means "human"?


  • #1386
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    swampgas wrote: »
    But only if they self-identify as such? Suppose the pope declared himself an atheist (and renounced Catholicsm) and went off to live in a commune, would you still consider him to be a Catholic?

    I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, yeah.


  • Advertisement
  • #1387
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    The inclusion of the "loving God" bit in the ethos I guess.

    Catholic pupils are thought that loving God is good. People want to send their kids to schools that teach them (in word and practice) to love God and love their neighbour.

    Yes. I imagine the basic "love thy neighbour" is taught in every single school in Ireland.
    So then the only percieved benefit to a catholic ethos is "loving god". (Leaving aside from the problems of that having jack all to do with education and the fact there's no reason this couldn't be thought at home. And the fact that parents don't care about the practice of loving god, since most don't go to mass.)
    So what makes it different to Protestant schools?
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You say spout, I say teach. Zuben says they have bad aim anyway.
    Generally when we are talking about hate and psuedoscience, we use "spout".

    And yes, it's largely ineffective as evidenced by the fact that most (and increasing numbers of) Catholics even realise that they are wrong on pretty much everything.
    The issue is the few it does effect and for propagating old cultural hang ups that should have been done away with decades ago.

    The slight amount of effective indoctrination is simply more important an issue than parents wanting their kids to "learn how to love god", whatever that actually entails.


  • #1388
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    So "catholic" actually means "human"?

    Only humans who want to be part of it (and kids who don't get a choice).


  • #1389
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    King Mob wrote: »
    So what makes it different to Protestant schools?

    Protestants sing more in church.


  • #1390
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,644 ✭✭✭swampgas


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, yeah.

    Wow, even in spite of his explicit self-identification otherwise?

    Seems to me you only count self-identification when identifying as a Catholic. A bit convenient that, isn't it?


  • #1391
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Only humans who want to be part of it (and kids who don't get a choice).

    I think that's rather at odds with the dictionary definition.


  • Advertisement
  • #1392
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    swampgas wrote: »
    Wow, even in spite of his explicit self-identification otherwise?

    Seems to me you only count self-identification when identifying as a Catholic. A bit convenient that, isn't it?

    No. I respect the views of anyone who says they are any religion or none.

    That's all I'm suggesting. Respect people's wishes to be who they want to be.


  • #1393
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Protestants sing more in church.
    Yup, that explains away the massive self contradictions in your position alright.

    So since you can't actually explain how a catholic ethos is different to a Protestant one, can you maybe explain the difference between a Catholic and a protestant?
    Why are you a Catholic and not a Protestant?


  • #1394
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No. I respect the views of anyone who says they are any religion or none.

    That's all I'm suggesting. Respect people's wishes to be who they want to be.

    People can be who they want to be, I'm not necessarily going to respect that. If they want to be a murderer they can be, doesn't mean I need to respect them for it.
    I also don't respect people's self-proclaimed labels. If someone claims to be a pacifist and then I see them hitting someone, I'm not going to count them as a pacifist.


  • #1395
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.

    I have been pointing to the catechism since the beginning of my time in this thread, BB, good to see you finally caught up :rolleyes:


  • #1396
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,644 ✭✭✭swampgas


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No. I respect the views of anyone who says they are any religion or none.

    That's all I'm suggesting. Respect people's wishes to be who they want to be.

    Except you seemed to be saying that a self-declared atheist would still be considered to be a Catholic by you, simply because he had once been a Catholic.

    That's not respecting his views now, is it?


  • #1397
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yup, that explains away the massive self contradictions in your position alright.

    So since you can't actually explain how a catholic ethos is different to a Protestant one, can you maybe explain the difference between a Catholic and a protestant?
    Why are you a Catholic and not a Protestant?

    The differences between a catholic ethos and a protestant ethos (and there won't be many) reflect the differences between the RCC and the various reformed (and/or protestant churches). My take on this is mainly around the reality of transubstantiation and the primacy of the See of Peter, along with a variety of other things (number of sacraments, certain teachings about Mary).

    But they're both very much "love God and Love your neighbour" and would be equally as welcoming.

    I'm a catholic and not a protestant becasue it makes me happy to be a catholic.


  • #1398
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    swampgas wrote: »
    Except you seemed to be saying that a self-declared atheist would still be considered to be a Catholic by you, simply because he had once been a Catholic.

    That's not respecting his views now, is it?

    No, it's not. My witty response fell flat there, clearly.

    The Pope is, of course, free to decide for himself which (if any) religion he fancies.


  • #1399
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,644 ✭✭✭swampgas


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I'm a catholic and not a protestant because it makes me happy to be a catholic.

    I believe you mean this, but seriously, can you not see the massive logical holes in this position?


  • #1400
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    The differences between a catholic ethos and a protestant ethos (and there won't be many) reflect the differences between the RCC and the various reformed (and/or protestant churches). My take on this is mainly around the reality of transubstantiation and the primacy of the See of Peter, along with a variety of other things (number of sacraments, certain teachings about Mary).

    But they're both very much "love God and Love your neighbour" and would be equally as welcoming.
    Which a lot of "catholics" don't agree with. And even if they did, I really don't see why they think that would matter in someone's education when they don't even go to mass.

    So there is no difference between them, according to you.
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I'm a catholic and not a protestant becasue it makes me happy to be a catholic.
    So again, there is no difference at all between you and a protestant.
    Thus the words are utterly meaningless.

    Why does being catholic make you happy? What about it makes you happy where protestantism would not?


  • #1401
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    swampgas wrote: »
    I believe you mean this, but seriously, can you not see the massive logical holes in this position?

    (Ignoring the rest of the debate so far)

    No.

    I'm a great believer in the fact that people choose to believe (or more likely continue to believe) in a particular religion because it simple makes them happier in life. Just like some people choose to believe in an atheist view of the world becasue it makes them happy. Happiness is vastly underrated as a motivational tool.


  • Advertisement
  • #1402
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.

    My very first post in this thread was actually warning you to be careful of what you are arguing for, as if what you are saying is true then it proves your point wrong, and you are still doing it now.

    If you are right, and I can't make my claim that people aren't really catholics because we have no way of knowing why they do or don't do what they do, then that equally applies to you. You, therefore, have no way of knowing what they think of anything catholic related and you, therefore, cannot make any claim that the numbers who self-label as catholic in the survey are doing so for any other reason than they like the label.


  • #1403
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why does being catholic make you happy? What about it makes you happy where protestantism would not?

    (Protestants would make me sing)

    That's a dificult question. Like asking, "What about your family makes you happy?" The love of God, worship, the eucharist, love of neighbour, global community, vast diversity within the church, history, etc....all these things make me happy.


  • #1404
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    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.

    Any chance of a source for this claim, because the source I provided says otherwise.
    Even accepting that no blessing was given, should the pope have met with someone who was pushing such a barbaric law into power, without decrying the law? Or even at all?


  • #1405
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    (Protestants would make me sing)

    That's a dificult question. Like asking, "What about your family makes you happy?" The love of God, worship, the eucharist, love of neighbour, global community, vast diversity within the church, history, etc....all these things make me happy.
    So there are differences between you a protestant, contrary to what you've been claiming.

    If a person didn't accept any of the above, would he be catholic?


  • #1406
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    I'm a great believer in the fact that people choose to believe (or more likely continue to believe) in a particular religion because it simple makes them happier in life.
    So you reckon everybody gets to define the term "catholic" themselves and nobody need agree on any common beliefs at all?


  • #1407
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Any chance of a source for this claim, because the source I provided says otherwise.
    Even accepting that no blessing was given, should the pope have met with someone who was pushing such a barbaric law into power, without decrying the law? Or even at all?

    It's on her Wikipedia page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Kadaga
    In December 2012, Kadaga was in Rome to give a speech at the Seventh Session of the Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians for the International Criminal Court and the Rule of Law.[9][10] Reports have circulated that Kadaga received a blessing from Pope Benedict XVI at a Vatican mass.[11] Soon after the news broke, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi issued a statement that said: “relations with the delegation were not out of the ordinary and no blessing was given.” The group of Ugandan MPs greeted the Pope “just like any other individuals attending an audience with the Pope would” and this was “by no means a specific sign of approval of Kadaga’’s actions or proposals.”[12]

    Like I said, the pope, like many diplomats meet lots of unsavoury politicians...including many who's views they would deeply oppose on any number of grounds.

    Yes, I'd like to see the church more vocally condemning those who promote violence and hate of gay people. I could well imagine Pope Francis wagging a finger at her. But then, real politik and all, which international politician will publically berate Putin to his face??


  • #1408
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    King Mob wrote: »
    So there are differences between you a protestant, contrary to what you've been claiming.

    If a person didn't accept any of the above, would he be catholic?

    How can a person not accept "history" or "global community"?

    I was pointing out some of the elements I liked in the RCC....doesn't mean to say others can't find similar or other highlights in their own chosen faith.


  • #1409
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It's on her Wikipedia page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Kadaga

    Fair enough.
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Like I said, the pope, like many diplomats meet lots of unsavoury politicians...including many who's views they would deeply oppose on any number of grounds.

    Yes, I'd like to see the church more vocally condemning those who promote violence and hate of gay people. I could well imagine Pope Francis wagging a finger at her. But then, real politik and all, which international politician will publically berate Putin to his face??

    This leaves us with so many questions though:

    The pope is a politician?
    Why should the head of a group that claims to be our moral guardians, not to mention in as direct contact with god as you can get, be afraid to criticise someone they see as doing wrong? They are happy to criticise homosexuals, atheists and liberals en masse, so why not individuals?
    Why hasn't Francis "waggled a finger at her" now?


  • #1410
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    robindch wrote: »
    So you reckon everybody gets to define the term "catholic" themselves and nobody need agree on any common beliefs at all?

    I believe anyone can call themselves a catholic if they like and no one should feel they have the right to tell them they've chosen incorrectly.

    AND

    Everyone is free to decide for themselves how much of the RCC's beliefs they share.

    Again it comes back to the "all-or-nothing" point of view. The RCC does not cast people aside because they can't believe in 100% or everything 100% of the time.


  • Advertisement
  • #1411
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    {...}

    Again it comes back to the "all-or-nothing" point of view. The RCC does not cast people aside because they can't believe in 100% or everything 100% of the time.

    Probably true, but it'd be a bit hypocritical to label yourself something if you had no intentions of living up to what the label means. For instance, if I labelled myself a pacifist, I'd be a hypocrite if I went to boxing classes once a week.


Advertisement