Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 04:39PM

robindch wrote: »

Are you aware of the scale of child rape that went on in this country?

As aware as I can be based on the various reports compiled regarding religious institutions and dioceses, and on the number of priests and religious in court answering charges on child abuse charges.

I'm also aware, again - as much as anyone can be, of the child abuse cases where family members, neighbours, friends, etc, etc were responsible.

Why do you ask?

AerynSun · 27-01-2014 04:41PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm also aware, again - as much as anyone can be, of the child abuse cases where family members, neighbours, friends, etc, etc were responsible.

So because it also happens in families and communities, ah sure don't be badgering the Church especially now. Is that what you're saying?

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 04:45PM

AerynSun wrote: »

So because it also happens in families and communities, ah sure don't be badgering the Church especially now. Is that what you're saying?

No. That's precisly not what I'm saying.

I began by answering robindch's question from the point of view of the RCC but realised that that wasn't what robindch had asked - he simply asked about the "scale of child rape that went on in this country." So I gave him a more complete answer.

AerynSun · 27-01-2014 04:48PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So I gave him a more complete answer.

Ah, that's okay then. For a second there, my inexperienced ears thought they heard attention being deflected away from the issue at hand. But I'm glad that's not what you were saying.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 04:52PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Ah, that's okay then. For a second there, my inexperienced ears thought they heard attention being deflected away from the issue at hand. But I'm glad that's not what you were saying.

The "issue at hand" left the building a long time ago AerynSun. I'm the first to criticise my own church for its ABJECT and APPALLING failure to recognise and manage child-abusers in it's midst. But I tire of the thought process that goes:

atheism - RCC - Schools - child abuse - hang 'em high - atheism wins.

Oh, and we should never, ever be complacent when it comes to child abuse. Just becasue a person is not a cleric does not mean that person cannot abuse children.

AerynSun · 27-01-2014 05:07PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The "issue at hand" left the building a long time ago AerynSun.

I don't think it HAS left the building, I Heart Internet. That's exactly the problem. And it's not going to go away until it has been satisfactorily resolved. It's still in progress... so conversations are going to keep happening. That's how humans - and society - make sense of lived experience.

I'm the first to criticise my own church for its ABJECT and APPALLING failure to recognise and manage child-abusers in it's midst.

I applaud you for that. When I was Catholic, I wasn't the first to criticise my own church, I stood with the confused crowds who were in shocked disbelief and tried to make the 'misunderstanding' go away. Because in my view, the church was good people. They had to be. I'm not in that position any more though, I'm clear now that abuse of children is wrong, and there is never an excuse for it - no matter how much compassion and understanding you might want to have for a person who's done wrong: the rights and experience and care of the child must be the priority. No exceptions.

But I tire of the thought process that goes: atheism - RCC - Schools - child abuse - hang 'em high - atheism wins.

Do you assume that my thought process was thus? I assure you, it wasn't - and isn't. For me, these discussions aren't about one side wins and the other loses: I'm trying to get to a place where both sides respect each other, but where both sides are also clear about what is and isn't okay when it comes to using one's social and historical (or otherwise) privilege to impose one's will on others - especially children.

Oh, and we should never, ever be complacent when it comes to child abuse. Just becasue a person is not a cleric does not mean that person cannot abuse children.

Agreed 100%.

robindch · 27-01-2014 05:08PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Oh, and we should never, ever be complacent when it comes to child abuse.

You could do worse than to examine your own complacency.

I Heart Internet · 27-01-2014 05:12PM

robindch wrote: »

You could do worse than to examine your own complacency.

2 or 3 times on this thread I've said (on a varity of matters) that if people believe crimes are being committed they should report them to the Gardai. People shouldn't sit on their hands re these issues. So throwing around allegations on an internet forum is all well and good, but if people have information regarding crimes they should take it to the Gardai. No ifs/buts/ands or excuses.

robindch · 27-01-2014 05:26PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

2 or 3 times on this thread I've said (on a varity of matters) that if people believe crimes are being committed they should report them to the Gardai.

And repeatedly on this thread, you've changed topic, straw-manned other poster's arguments, ignored questions, ignored answers, slid from one issue to another in a fairly disingenuous fashion, produced total non-sequitur comments like the one quoted here, and to a considerable extent, broadly ignored the majority of the issue that you seem to think you're discussing.

If your confused posts here accurately replicates the structure of your own actual views on the topic, then it's not surprising that you're still defending the church, heavens, still even seem to like it :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber · 27-01-2014 06:10PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In fairness, it's not like I was throwing it out apropos of nothing. It is a valid point to raise and I've just been responding to people who have responded to it. I am quite happy to not mention it anymore, but then there needs to be a similar response to the raising of less relevant topics such as child abuse.

Well that was prophetic.

Meanwhile in other equally (non) relevant discussions to how many Catholics there are in Ireland, Peter Tatchell, the gay activist and former secularist of the year thinks that "Not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."

AerynSun · 27-01-2014 06:17PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well that was prophetic.

Meanwhile in other equally (non) relevant discussions to how many Catholics there are in Ireland, Peter Tatchell, the gay activist and former secularist of the year thinks that "Not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."

If you're asking a mod to step in to get things back on topic, fair enough.

But seriously... you're throwing it out there that that horrible statement is attributable to a gay activist? Where are your comparably horrible statements from heterosexual douchebags?

gaynorvader · 27-01-2014 06:25PM

Related:
Catholic beliefs->Irish Catholic child abuse scandal->Ireland->Catholic population

Not related
Muslim beliefs->Brevik (Norweigan extremist)->Ireland->Catholic population->Gay activist's views on child abuse

I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

Turtwig · 27-01-2014 07:02PM

Several unrelated posts deleted. Ironic, some might add.

Kiwi in IE · 27-01-2014 09:11PM

I had a conversation yesterday with a family member and the preist mentioned in the 'Christening etiquette' thread. Family member (FM) was trying to apologise on my behalf I think, for the fact I had told the preist I'm an atheist. It went like this;

FM: "But she is a good Christian" (Knows well enough I am no Christian)

Me: "I'm not a Christian"

FM: "Yes you are you were baptised"

Me: "Well that hardly makes me a Christian, for starters I don't believe in the Christian god, I don't believe Jesus was anything other than an ordinary man and I certainly don't believe his mother was a virgin."

FM: "You were baptised a Christian"

Really?

Bannasidhe · 27-01-2014 09:21PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I had a conversation yesterday with a family member and the preist mentioned in the 'Christening etiquette' thread. Family member (FM) was trying to apologise on my behalf I think, for the fact I had told the preist I'm an atheist. It went like this;

FM: "But she is a good Christian" (Knows well enough I am no Christian)

Me: "I'm not a Christian"

FM: "Yes you are you were baptised"

Me: "Well that hardly makes me a Christian, for starters I don't believe in the Christian god, I don't believe Jesus was anything other than an ordinary man and I certainly don't believe his mother was a virgin."

FM: "You were baptised a Christian"

Really?

Heard that quite often from my Dad until I gently swatted him around the facial area with the official (on headed note paper) you-are-no-longer-a-catholic-now-never-darken-our-doors-again letter from the Bishop of Cork.

Kiwi in IE · 27-01-2014 09:48PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Heard that quite often from my Dad until I gently swatted him around the facial area with the official (on headed note paper) you-are-no-longer-a-catholic-now-never-darken-our-doors-again letter from the Bishop of Cork.

My grandmother was from Greece. She goes to Greek Orthodox church occasionally for cultural reasons far more than religious. My mother had us baptised there as a gesture to her mother. I think they were the only two times we entered the church. But hey apparently that makes me a 'Christain'!

robindch · 27-01-2014 09:49PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Heard that quite often from my Dad until I gently swatted him around the facial area with the official (on headed note paper) you-are-no-longer-a-catholic-now-never-darken-our-doors-again letter from the Bishop of Cork.

What exactly does the letter say? Am asking as the RCC's position is that once-a-catholic, always-a-catholic, so perhaps the bish of Cork has set up his own little enclave of catholic orthodoxy?

Pray, tell!

Bannasidhe · 27-01-2014 10:20PM

robindch wrote: »

What exactly does the letter say? Am asking as the RCC's position is that once-a-catholic, always-a-catholic, so perhaps the bish of Cork has set up his own little enclave of catholic orthodoxy?

Pray, tell!

Will have to paraphrase as the original is now lodged with my will in case any one get notions about my funeral.

As I remember it confirms (

) that the record of my baptism had been amended to show I had formally defected (it has - I checked) and I could no longer participate in their rituals. There was a little bit of waffle about 'communion with Church and blah blah' and a touch of the passive-aggressive about the wording but that is the gist of it.

Friend of mine got hers at the same time but she had been asked to go chat to the Bish...my letter, although polite, came so quickly and without a quibble that I always got a whiff of 'don't let the door hit you in the ass...' off it.

alaimacerc · 28-01-2014 12:03AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I remember it confirms ( ) that the record of my baptism had been amended to show I had formally defected (it has - I checked) and I could no longer participate in their rituals. There was a little bit of waffle about 'communion with Church and blah blah' and a touch of the passive-aggressive about the wording but that is the gist of it.

I'm assuming that is is the procedure that they removed a couple of years ago. In "initiatory" or "eyes of eternity" terms it doesn't change the "supernatural fact" of your baptism, confirmation, or participation in previous communions. As I understand it, it's essentially them saying "we take note that you're now voluntarily excommunicating yourself by reason of your own apostasy."

That this procedure no longer exists is somewhat suggestive that they'd largely like formal apostasy to disappear, the better to deal with as they do with with informal apostasy, i.e. ignore it, and treat the person as a "temporarily lapsed bad Catholic". After all, silence lends assent, so if they manage (or pretend) not to hear you, good enough.

alaimacerc · 28-01-2014 12:25AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

FM: "You were baptised a Christian"

Really?

Well, as I said earlier to another poster whose name I'd look up if I wasn't a lazy sod, there's two "official" definitions that have some pertinent to the "who is a Christian (or a Catholic)" question. There's the sacramental stuff, which is irreversible. If you're baptised, become an ardent atheist, and get a letter acknowledging this from the congress of cardinals, handwritte by the pope himself, and then decide to change your mind, and go back to being a Catholic (or join some other Trinitarian outfit), it wouldn't be necessary (or "possible") to get baptised again. Then there's the "current status" stuff, that you can gain or lose, formally or informally.

Sorta like a "form is temporary, class is permanent" thing, if you will.

Kiwi in IE · 28-01-2014 12:41AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, as I said earlier to another poster whose name I'd look up if I wasn't a lazy sod, there's two "official" definitions that have some pertinent to the "who is a Christian (or a Catholic)" question. There's the sacramental stuff, which is irreversible. If you're baptised, become an ardent atheist, and get a letter acknowledging this from the congress of cardinals, handwritte by the pope himself, and then decide to change your mind, and go back to being a Catholic (or join some other Trinitarian outfit), it wouldn't be necessary (or "possible") to get baptised again. Then there's the "current status" stuff, that you can gain or lose, formally or informally.

Sorta like a "form is temporary, class is permanent" thing, if you will.

So you can be a 'Christian' whilst believing that the Christian god is non existent, Jesus was not a superhero and a very large part of the Christian bible is fiction? Well that explains a lot and goes a long way to renewing my faith in humanity! It's little wonder there are so many Christians in the world!

Bannasidhe · 28-01-2014 12:42AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So you can be a 'Christian' whilst believing that the Christian god is non existent, Jesus was not a superhero and a very large part of the Christian bible is fiction? Well that explains a lot and goes a long way to renewing my faith in humanity! It's little wonder there are so many Christians in the world!

When the Woo Water is poured on your head eternal magic happens.

Kiwi in IE · 28-01-2014 12:48AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm assuming that is is the procedure that they removed a couple of years ago. In "initiatory" or "eyes of eternity" terms it doesn't change the "supernatural fact" of your baptism, confirmation, or participation in previous communions.

Oxymoron of the day!

alaimacerc · 28-01-2014 02:52AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

....by making it more accurate.

Eh, no. By trying to make it useless, as you've done for every other term used for the class of school in question.

But becasue these schools are not State Schools

*tears hair out* "These are not the things that are called that, because I call some other (essentially irrelevant to this discussion) things that." You're conflating things that you say should/would be called "state schools" (the small number of which that actually exist actually being called several different things, none of them the actual term "state schools"), and claiming some theoretical notional confusion with that everyone else calls a "state(-funded) school".

any change will have to e agreed with those who own and manage these schools.

That's an entirely separate issue. (And I can think of a means or three, but let's get to that in due course, and very possibly on an entirely different thread.)

Look, for the sake of a small shred of sanity in this discussion, if any small such hope remains, is there any term that you will stipulate to, to describe "non-fee-paying schools highly predominantly capitalised and current-funded by the state, available as of right to any child in the state, (at least notionally) free at the point of use to persons in the state, which it is a duty of the state to provide a place at, to be run by an entity requiring approval from the state"? Or are you going to just try to grab the steering wheel and run us into a terminological ditch every time, regardless? In which case, I'll give up, keep saying "state school" or "state-funded school", on the explicit understanding that we're just giving up on you, and referring you back to this post for any requisite subsequent such exercises.

alaimacerc · 28-01-2014 02:57AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Oxymoron of the day!

Why thank you, you're too kind.

(I thought that in a quasi-accommodationist spirit, I might lay off the "D&D Cleric spells" and "unverifiable metaphysics" references for a post or two.

shruikan2553 · 28-01-2014 03:03AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I had a conversation yesterday with a family member and the preist mentioned in the 'Christening etiquette' thread. Family member (FM) was trying to apologise on my behalf I think, for the fact I had told the preist I'm an atheist. It went like this;

FM: "But she is a good Christian" (Knows well enough I am no Christian)

Me: "I'm not a Christian"

FM: "Yes you are you were baptised"

Me: "Well that hardly makes me a Christian, for starters I don't believe in the Christian god, I don't believe Jesus was anything other than an ordinary man and I certainly don't believe his mother was a virgin."

FM: "You were baptised a Christian"

Really?

Never understood this myself. Someone decides for you to be a Christian, you decide nope but they continue on like you actually agreeing to it wasnt part of the deal (which is what I thought confirmation was for you to say "yes, i want to be a christian" so technically anyone who decided not to do their confirmation shouldnt be seen as a christian)

If I sign someone up to a pharmacy newsletter that specialises in viagra I cant claim they take viagra and they give me a weird look when I go around telling everyone they take it!

alaimacerc · 28-01-2014 03:07AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Eh, Reform Alliance /= RCC

I refer you to the concepts of "mystery of the Trinity" and/or "wholly-owned subsidiary" for some intuition as to the nature of the relationship between the two. Did you miss the phrase "and its political apologists"? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an illustrative example?

The RCC view of moral issues is, like other philosophies, as broad as the spectrum of human behaviour.

Not unlike the spectrum of black body radiation, and like that, with a big ol' peak in a very predictable place.

Your "scare quotes" fail because you are committing precisely the same "morals = sex" equivalence that you're accusing the RCC of.

Eh, no. It's called "making reference to". If the equation existed in my mind, I'd hardly need the quotes. I think the very fact that you're trying to pin on me belief in a false equivalence that I was mocking itself rather shows just how ingrained an association it is in (for example) your own mind.

alaimacerc · 28-01-2014 03:40AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

(which is what I thought confirmation was for you to say "yes, i want to be a christian" so technically anyone who decided not to do their confirmation shouldnt be seen as a christian)

Just for the laugh, I looked up the CCC on confirmation, to see if any of it cast any light. It starts off: "(1302) It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost." "Evident", indeed... It's like a mathematician pulling out "by inspection" when he wants to gloss over a tricky part of a proof without troubling to do any actual work. The rest of the section is in the same vein: it's all fine and grand and dandy, does all sorts of good things... but doesn't actually make a blind bit of difference to anything, even "metaphysically" in any even vaguely self-consistent manner.

alaimacerc · 28-01-2014 03:47AM

AerynSun wrote: »

Ja, Zuider Afrika is ietwat Nederlands-isch South Africa.

Oh! Ah! (Cantona!)

Only a few of them are "trinitarian" - you could (at a push) put those ones together, but the others range across the board.

Traditionally one lumps to "denominational body" (Southern Conference? Heretic!) or "denomination", unless the Christians are such a small minority that they're all squished into one heading. (Or "Catholic", "Orthodox", and "Protestant".)

I notice that Wikipedia does a tad more "lumping" than you initially made reference to:

No religion 6,767,165
Other Apostolic churches 5,627,320
Zion Christian churches 4,971,931
Pentecostal/Charismatic churches 3,695,211
Catholic churches 3,181,332
Methodist churches 3,035,719
Dutch Reformed churches 3,005,697
Other Christian churches 2,890,151
Other Zionist churches 1,887,147
Anglican churches 1,722,076
Ethiopian type churches 1,150,102
Lutheran churches 1,130,983
Presbyterian churches 832,497
Baptist churches 691,235

I'd have assumed that those groups were all broadly trinitarian (give or take the odd Oneness Pentecostal), but to be honest it's a bit like lizard mating (it takes one to know one, etc etc), so I'll defer to anyone with better knowledge.

Total population: 44,819,778 people at the 2012 count (and it's tricky to count South Africans - lots of informal settlements and migration).

This is what really confused me. I tried to google for a country with a population around that, and found noplace close that sounded at all likely. Google, Wikipedia, and the available census numbers all have 'em at well over 50M.

I Heart Internet · 28-01-2014 10:05AM

robindch wrote: »

And repeatedly on this thread, you've changed topic, straw-manned other poster's arguments, ignored questions, ignored answers, slid from one issue to another in a fairly disingenuous fashion, produced total non-sequitur comments like the one quoted here, and to a considerable extent, broadly ignored the majority of the issue that you seem to think you're discussing.

Yeah, I think I'm no more guilty of doing this than anyone else here. Perhaps less so.

And the issue that we think we're discussing here - I think that (how many Christians in Ireland) went out the window long ago. Lets agree that what we're doing here is having a protracted back-and-forth where I quite like the RCC and others dislike them.

Let's at least be honest with ourselves about it.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments