Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Street Preacher arrested for singing and preeching of Jesus

124»

Comments

  • #152
    km991148
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭km991148


    theological wrote: »
    I'm apparently meant to find it impressive that nozzferrahhtoo supports "free" speech provided it is in a small corner of a park in London. The fact that you have mandated it should be in a small corner of a park in London rather than anywhere in public betrays the fact it isn't free.

    Alright, tell us the name of your street and when the restrictions are lifted, I'll bring round the PA system and get started. I prefer the night shift - any volunteers for daytime? All sound? ye?


  • #153
    Vieira82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Vieira82


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    Lovely times we are living when peoples are being arrested for street preeching now.


    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/street-preacher-fails-to-halt-trial-over-singing-and-referencing-jesus-1.4395703

    and why can't he preach like others do, a small stand, a friendly aproach and a few flyers offered? Oh and like others mentioned before, not being abusive towards others?


  • #154
    lexi-lexi
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭lexi-lexi


    I've come across this particular guy several times both in Gorey and in Wexford town. He called my teen daughter a hore of babylon and an occasion of sin because she wore a tshirt with a round neck on a hot summers day. He also shouted graphic descriptions of abortion at my 8 year old daughter and when I confronted him he ignored me and said 'youre blessed as your mammy didnt abort you ' .

    I've witnessed him scream abuse at lone women and groups of teenage girls as well as preach about gay people burning in hellfire. People are absolutely sick of him. There is a reason he was ran out of Waterford. If you search any article about him on Facebook you will see countless comments from people who have been abused or upset by him

    I have never had any problem with people preaching on the street, once done in a respectable manner, my own father is a street preacher but what this man has been doing is disturbing. He needs help


  • #155
    NaFirinne
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭NaFirinne


    lexi-lexi wrote: »
    I've come across this particular guy several times both in Gorey and in Wexford town. He called my teen daughter a hore of babylon and an occasion of sin because she wore a tshirt with a round neck on a hot summers day. He also shouted graphic descriptions of abortion at my 8 year old daughter and when I confronted him he ignored me and said 'youre blessed as your mammy didnt abort you ' .

    I've witnessed him scream abuse at lone women and groups of teenage girls as well as preach about gay people burning in hellfire. People are absolutely sick of him. There is a reason he was ran out of Waterford. If you search any article about him on Facebook you will see countless comments from people who have been abused or upset by him

    I have never had any problem with people preaching on the street, once done in a respectable manner, my own father is a street preacher but what this man has been doing is disturbing. He needs help


    If this is the case then I have to agree with you here. If he is nothing but being abusive to people then that's not preeching the gospel. It's just abusing people and doesn't sound Christian to me.


  • #156
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,652 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    If this is the case then I have to agree with you here. If he is nothing but being abusive to people then that's not preeching the gospel. It's just abusing people and doesn't sound Christian to me.

    You were told this in the fifth post of the thread
    tobothehobo wrote: »
    Alot more to the story. He has on many occasions been very abusive to people walking past especially young women and teenage girls. He deserves whatever he gets and much more.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Cabaal wrote: »
    What you've argued above is homophobic, you can try argue that its not....but it is.

    Same as if you tried to argue if the bible said a white man shouldn't marry a black woman (or visa versa) wasn't racist. It is racist.

    While some people may want to try make excuses for holding and preaching homophobic or racist views by claiming that somehow their religion gives them a free card. Thankfully most reasonable people see the hate for what it is.....so do our courts!

    So simply stating that (shock and horror) people have different views about what marriage is is homophobic?

    As far as I'm concerned, people have the liberty to do what they like under the law, but they don't have the right to force me to agree.

    Can people disagree about marriage without having a "dislike of or prejudice against gay people"? I think so.

    I find it ironic that people who profess to be socially liberal are anything but when it comes to freedom of thought and expression.


  • #158
    NaFirinne
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭NaFirinne


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You were told this in the fifth post of the thread




    Mearly giving the gospel can be viewed as abusive by people.


    Qouting scripture can be viewed as abusive by people.


    Establiing what this man did to warrant being abusive is important.


    There are many christians down in wexford and I'm suprised that none of them challenged him if he was calling himself a christian while actually being abusive to passers by.


    Especially being abusive towards children is a serious crime and should be treated as such.


  • #159
    NaFirinne
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭NaFirinne


    Cabaal wrote: »
    What you've argued above is homophobic, you can try argue that its not....but it is.

    Same as if you tried to argue if the bible said a white man shouldn't marry a black woman (or visa versa) wasn't racist. It is racist.

    While some people may want to try make excuses for holding and preaching homophobic or racist views by claiming that somehow their religion gives them a free card. Thankfully most reasonable people see the hate for what it is.....so do our courts!


    This is probably a discussion for another thread but a mod can decide on that or not.


    However for a christian the Bible is God's word and God's word needs to be taken seriously.


    So for a Christian the Bibical teaching on marriage is what God has defined as what marriage is, which is different from how our Laws have defined what marriage is.


    So is the bibical teaching of marriage homophobic?


  • #160
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    NaFirinne wrote: »

    So is the bibical teaching of marriage homophobic?


    Depends on perspective.



    To a Christian no, because nothing attributed to god can be seen as wrong such as the random killing of the first born.



    Yes to a non believer.


  • #161
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,652 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    Mearly giving the gospel can be viewed as abusive by people.


    Qouting scripture can be viewed as abusive by people.


    Establiing what this man did to warrant being abusive is important.


    There are many christians down in wexford and I'm suprised that none of them challenged him if he was calling himself a christian while actually being abusive to passers by.


    Especially being abusive towards children is a serious crime and should be treated as such.

    Literally, It's in the fifth post!
    He has on many occasions been very abusive to people walking past especially young women and teenage girls


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    NaFirinne
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭NaFirinne


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Depends on perspective.



    To a Christian no, because nothing attributed to god can be seen as wrong such as the random killing of the first born.



    Yes to a non believer.




    So is the perspective that if your a Bible believing Christian then your against Homosexuality thus you are Homophopic.


    And from a Christian perspective in turn if your for homosexuality your against the bibical teachings of God?


    And as you said from A Christian perspective God is Good.


  • #163
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    So is the perspective that if your a Bible believing Christian then your against Homosexuality thus you are Homophopic.


    :confused: What else would you call someone against homosexuality?

    NaFirinne wrote: »

    And from a Christian perspective in turn if your for homosexuality your against the bibical teachings of God?

    Christianity being the NT, where did Jesus say this? You're probably more familiar with it than I.
    NaFirinne wrote: »
    And as you said from A Christian perspective God is Good.
    Yes, in the same way Satanists think Satan is A OKAY.


  • #164
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    This is probably a discussion for another thread but a mod can decide on that or not.


    However for a christian the Bible is God's word and God's word needs to be taken seriously.


    So for a Christian the Bibical teaching on marriage is what God has defined as what marriage is, which is different from how our Laws have defined what marriage is.


    So is the bibical teaching of marriage homophobic?

    There's a gay megathread here which contains discussion about Christian views to homosexuality. From my own experience I've met Christians who are all for allowing gay marriage as well as those who staunchly oppose it. Given the recent referendum result it would seem that the majority of Christians in this country don't have an issue with gay marriage from a legal perspective.


  • #165
    NaFirinne
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭NaFirinne


    Deleted User wrote: »
    :confused: What else would you call someone against homosexuality?




    Christianity being the NT, where did Jesus say this? You're probably more familiar with it than I.


    Yes, in the same way Satanists think Satan is A OKAY.




    I think that's getting out of the scope a little bit.


    It's comparing the bibical definition on marriage and if the bible caters for same sex marriages.


    Again I think this topic is big enough for a seperate thread for discussion.


    There is bibical marriage which is God blessing the union of man and women.


    And there is the natural lawful marriage we have today which is not bibical.


    A bible believing Christian would view God's ordinances on marriage as being true marriage. Anything else is coming from man and not from following God.


    Also a Christian would study the Bible as a whole and not only the NT. Although there are plenty of scriptures covering homosexuality in the NT.





    We are all sinners before God, we are all on an equal footing. The Gospel message is to repent and seek the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and then follow his ways and live a righteous life as best you can.


    Repent as in to change your life for the better. You do not need to be a slave in Sin. The Blood of Christ was given that all might be saved and homosexuality doesn't exclude anyone from seeking that.


  • #166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    It's comparing the bibical definition on marriage and if the bible caters for same sex marriages.


    There is bibical marriage which is God blessing the union of man and women.


    And there is the natural lawful marriage we have today which is not bibical.


    A bible believing Christian would view God's ordinances on marriage as being true marriage. Anything else is coming from man and not from following God.




    ...


    Also a Christian would study the Bible as a whole and not only the NT. Although there are plenty of scriptures covering homosexuality in the NT.




    Again back to perspective. Which came first, the bible or marriage. Historically it would be marriage.



    There is a bit of pick and mix when it comes to the OT. Things like 'not being allowed to wear clothes made of two threads (as just one example)' get dismissed/ignored by saying the NT of Jesus supersedes the OT. But, other times, when they want to they still quote the OT as relevant.


  • #167
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    God created the world before anyone got married. I think that gives Him the right to define what it is and its intention.

    As for the New Testament Jesus explicitly leans on the Genesis understanding on marriage in Matthew 19. He condemns sexual.immorality as it was understood by His hearers in Mark 7. It is untrue to suggest therefore that NT Scripture doesn't speak about marriage and the right place for sexual expression. I suspect you know this.

    It differs to areas that Jesus fulfilled such as dietary laws because Jesus explicitly refers to dietary laws in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. I suspect you know this also.

    This is the reason why I'm preferring the level of discussion on Christian matters on Reddit rather than here. The arguments on the sceptical side are on a higher level.


  • #168
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,533 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I think you'll find the rules of engagement on Reddit are very different from boards in general and this forum in particular. Hardly a fair comparison.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #169
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I think you'll find the rules of engagement on Reddit are very different from boards in general and this forum in particular. Hardly a fair comparison.

    The atheist participants also seem to have stronger arguments. Particularly on the DebateAChristian subreddit.


  • #170
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,412 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    theological wrote: »
    The atheist participants also seem to have stronger arguments. Particularly on the DebateAChristian subreddit.

    I’d imagine they just have more interest in arguing. Most atheists don’t care what others believe just like most religious people aren’t too worried about what others do. As with most things in life the noisy minority make the noise.


  • #171
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    theological wrote: »
    God created the world before anyone got married. I think that gives Him the right to define what it is and its intention.


    When was this to the nearest billion years? Also, where is it said that it's now okay to wear two threads?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    I think that's getting out of the scope a little bit.


    It's comparing the bibical definition on marriage and if the bible caters for same sex marriages.


    Again I think this topic is big enough for a seperate thread for discussion.


    There is bibical marriage which is God blessing the union of man and women.


    And there is the natural lawful marriage we have today which is not bibical.


    A bible believing Christian would view God's ordinances on marriage as being true marriage. Anything else is coming from man and not from following God.


    Also a Christian would study the Bible as a whole and not only the NT. Although there are plenty of scriptures covering homosexuality in the NT.





    We are all sinners before God, we are all on an equal footing. The Gospel message is to repent and seek the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and then follow his ways and live a righteous life as best you can.


    Repent as in to change your life for the better. You do not need to be a slave in Sin. The Blood of Christ was given that all might be saved and homosexuality doesn't exclude anyone from seeking that.

    While they are currently very much a minority, there are an increasing number of Christian churches blessing same sex marriages. Going forward I imagine this will only increase as churches either follow changing social attitudes or risk becoming irrelevant to the larger part of society.


  • #173
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,533 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    theological wrote: »
    The atheist participants also seem to have stronger arguments. Particularly on the DebateAChristian subreddit.

    Are you actually expecting a free and fair discussion here? The rules explicitly protect Christianity from any sort of critique.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #174
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Are you actually expecting a free and fair discussion here? The rules explicitly protect Christianity from any sort of critique.
    theological wrote: »
    The atheist participants also seem to have stronger arguments. Particularly on the DebateAChristian subreddit.

    With respect theological, if you want strong debate with atheists on boards you are better off starting a thread on the atheist and agnostics forum. Firstly, you'll get a broader atheist audience and secondly, as pointed out, the local charter there is more suited to debate that challenges the Christian position.

    On a personal note, in my opinion suggesting the quality of debate on this forum here is inferior to that found on reddit is disrespectful of both the posters here and of the forum. You should perhaps bear this in mind if you want your own posts here to be treated with respect.


  • #175
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    smacl wrote: »
    While they are currently very much a minority, there are an increasing number of Christian churches blessing same sex marriages. Going forward I imagine this will only increase as churches either follow changing social attitudes or risk becoming irrelevant to the larger part of society.
    It's worth pointing out that it seems to work the other way around. Churches which conform to worldly thought rather than Christian thought die. Churches which hold to traditional Biblical teaching on this issue are growing.

    Why? Well if you water down Christianity to be whatever the world says then it offers nothing different to anybody. Sunday mornings would be better spent off on bed. Uncompromising Christianity which proclaims a distinctive radical life giving Saviour is the only one that will survive into the long term for two reasons.

    Firstly because it is distinctive, secondly because God will preserve His word and His people.


  • #176
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    theological wrote: »
    It's worth pointing out that it seems to work the other way around. Churches which conform to worldly thought rather than Christian thought die. Churches which hold to traditional Biblical teaching on this issue are growing.

    Its an issue I have not looked into at all. But you seem to know the figures well enough. Could you cite your sources perhaps? smacl offered one above, but I am not seeing one in your counter claim.

    I would be interested to see statistics showing not just which churches are growing, and which are dying.... but statistics which are explicitly showing WHY each is doing so..... which your assertion above suggests you have access to.


  • #177
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Its an issue I have not looked into at all. But you seem to know the figures well enough. Could you cite your sources perhaps? smacl offered one above, but I am not seeing one in your counter claim.

    I would be interested to see statistics showing not just which churches are growing, and which are dying.... but statistics which are explicitly showing WHY each is doing so..... which your assertion above suggests you have access to.

    The phenomenon I've described is well documented.


  • #178
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,533 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Paywalled.

    Does it refer largely or exclusively to the U.S.?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #179
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    theological wrote: »
    The phenomenon I've described is well documented.

    That is not a study or a document. It is a news paper article. Specifically about protestant churches in Canada, rather than all churches everywhere. So I am struggling to see how this is relevant to your above assertions?

    Further what the article is saying is markedly different from what you are claiming it is saying. Which is hardly a surprise given your claims about what I said were markedly different from what I said too. It would appear you changing things people say into something else, is something of an issue we have to watch for here as we move forward.

    Firstly: What you said above, and I asked for a citation for, was "It's worth pointing out that it seems to work the other way around. Churches which conform to worldly thought rather than Christian thought die. Churches which hold to traditional Biblical teaching on this issue are growing."

    So what you specifically claimed was about homosexuality and homosexual marriage. You very specifically said "on this issue". I am not putting words in your mouth, like you did to me. It is 100% exactly what you said. And the article you linked to does not mention this issue AT ALL. So your article is not a citation backing up your assertion at all. And it is not a citation supporting the assertion that I asked for a citation to support. Maybe try again?

    Secondly: What the article also says is that the churches who were teaching Christian Thought and were already dying off tried to switch to more liberal thought to stem that decline. And the switch did not stem that decline (Quote: "But the liberal turn in mainline churches doesn’t appear to have solved their problem of decline."). In other words the decline was already in progress BEFORE the switch in teaching.

    So the problem here with your link is that the claim that liberalism is a predictor of decline, while conservatism is the opposite, is a confounded prediction based on the churches who have recognized they are ALREADY in the decline, are the ones who try to shift to be more liberal and appealing in a failed attempt to reverse the decline.

    Thirdly: Their own study shows quite quickly why their churches are declining and it has nothing to do with conservative or liberal teachings. The problem ACTUALLY is that in the declining churches the congregation are simply not believing the claims any more. When asked two survey questions “Jesus rose from the dead with a real flesh-and-blood body leaving behind an empty tomb.” and “God performs miracles in answer to prayers” then the people in the declining churches were less likely to say they agreed with / believed those statements. These statements do not follow a liberal/conservative divide either. They are quite low bar statements for churches of either type to be honest. And if the congregation are losing faith in even those most basic tenets of faith.... then I doubt liberal or conservative teachings on the matter are the issue there.

    But we see much the same thing in Ireland. When the Bishops Congregation did a survey of Catholic Belief in Ireland found many Catholics do not believe many of these claims either and in fact 8% of Catholics do not even think there is a god. Which I would have expected was a very low bar to have to reach to qualify for most definitions of "Catholic".But I had my expectations corrected when I read that result I guess! Live and learn.

    As your own link says "In defense of liberal churches, one might venture that it is the strength of belief, not the specifics of belief, that is the real cause of growth."

    Summary: So it seems the news paper article opinion piece does not really track with your claims. Rather it is an observation that, independent of what the churches are teaching, decline is happening in many areas. And decline is a predictor of trying to shift to more appealing and liberal views rather than appealing or liberal views being a predictor of the decline. You have, in essence, interpreted the data exactly backwards.


  • #180
    one world order
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭one world order


    theological wrote: »
    It's worth pointing out that it seems to work the other way around. Churches which conform to worldly thought rather than Christian thought die. Churches which hold to traditional Biblical teaching on this issue are growing.

    Why? Well if you water down Christianity to be whatever the world says then it offers nothing different to anybody. Sunday mornings would be better spent off on bed. Uncompromising Christianity which proclaims a distinctive radical life giving Saviour is the only one that will survive into the long term for two reasons.

    Firstly because it is distinctive, secondly because God will preserve His word and His people.

    That's exactly it. The bible is from God and it's truth will always stand. When people try to modify the bible to make it more appealing to a sinful world, the church loses it's credibility as time goes on. Satan is not interested in spiritual warfare against a lukewarm church as he knows they have rejected the truth and so are not a threat to him. It's those churches that preach the truth is where the holy spirit resides and you can actually see it in the people who have taken up their cross and are walking in their faith with Christ.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    one world order wrote: »
    actually see it in the people who have taken up their cross and are walking in their faith with Christ.


    I've never seen it. And I've met 1000's of people. Have does it manifest, and would you consider this ability of yours supernatural, a super power?


  • #182
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    While they are currently very much a minority, there are an increasing number of Christian churches blessing same sex marriages. Going forward I imagine this will only increase as churches either follow changing social attitudes or risk becoming irrelevant to the larger part of society.
    The role of the church is to proclaim the truth - even if it is not popular - not to conform to the trends of the day.


  • #183
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    John Hutton wrote: »
    The role of the church is to proclaim the truth - even if it is not popular - not to conform to the trends of the day.

    To which church specifically do you refer here? The link the user offered listed several.... representing quite a wide cross section of the Christian Churches in our world.

    Perhaps you are talking specifically about the role of YOUR church? Which is fine of course.

    But if you are not.... then surely it is up to any given church to decide for themselves what their remit, purpose, and procedures are? Not you? And not me? We do not get to define this for them, or tell them what their role is. They tell US that.

    And if a Christian Church decides their role is to lead people to the teachings of Christ by applying those teachings, and interpreting them, in light of modernity rather than the age he himself lived in.... then that is up to them.


  • #184
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    To which church specifically do you refer here? The link the user offered listed several.... representing quite a wide cross section of the Christian Churches in our world.

    Perhaps you are talking specifically about the role of YOUR church? Which is fine of course.

    But if you are not.... then surely it is up to any given church to decide for themselves what their remit, purpose, and procedures are? Not you? And not me? We do not get to define this for them, or tell them what their role is. They tell US that.

    And if a Christian Church decides their role is to lead people to the teachings of Christ by applying those teachings, and interpreting them, in light of modernity rather than the age he himself lived in.... then that is up to them.
    They represent a cross section of protestant churches of which there are almost innumerable examples, each with their own take, or a very small amount of Catholics going on a solo run.

    I refer to the role of the church in God's plan, the church of course being the one 'set up' by Christ. So it is for God to decide the role, remit, purpose etc. of the church, which He has. (Although man has done his very best to mess it up and destroy it, but it continues still). I could go on about the role of the Catholic Church in God's plan, but you can Google that yourself, there's much written about it...

    Of course, with you being a determined unbeliever (not to mention an unrepentant desecrator of the Eucharist) this won't make much sense to you. If Christ were not God but rather a mere philosopher with some nice teachings for and of his period in history your general argument would have some validity - but that's not the case.

    A common trend in these discussions is the avoidance of the central question of if God exists and the resultant nature of Jesus Christ. If you skip over this to discuss other aspects of faith (which is tempting as I have yet to see anyone get convinced one way or the other on an internet forum) it effectively makes any resultant conversation redundant, because you and I are speaking not only from different points of view but entirely different frames of reference. You can say that aspects of faith or practice don't make sense, but with the absence of God this can only be the case and no one should be surprised by this. The entire thing stands or falls on the existence of God, and Jesus being true God and true Man. With two decided, determined, opposite and sincerely held opposing views on this fundamental question discussions like this on an internet forum with people like you (you have already formed an immovable - by man anyway - opinion on the subject of God) can never come to any sort of satisfactory conclusion.


  • #185
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    John Hutton wrote: »
    The role of the church is to proclaim the truth - even if it is not popular - not to conform to the trends of the day.

    While that might well be the case, falling attendances and membership is a well documented concern of the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church at all levels. Even the pope has gone so far as to recognize the legitimacy of same sex partnerships even if he doesn't go as far as allowing marriage. Compare this to RCC attitudes to homosexuality a few decades back and you will note a stark change which is clearly in response to evolving social attitudes. Do you have any reason to believe that this trend will not continue?

    I think it is worth remembering also that the church is part of society. While the church can and does influence society, likewise society influences the church.


  • #186
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    While that might well be the case, falling attendances and membership is a well documented concern of the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church at all levels. Even the pope has gone so far as to recognize the legitimacy of same sex partnerships even if he doesn't go as far as allowing marriage. Compare this to RCC attitudes to homosexuality a few decades back and you will note a stark change which is clearly in response to evolving social attitudes. Do you have any reason to believe that this trend will not continue?

    I think it is worth remembering also that the church is part of society. While the church can and does influence society, likewise society influences the church.
    It is a concern in certain parts of the world, but this is not the first time this has happened and the solution is certainly not the changing of fundamental beliefs, not least because these represent fundamental truths and are not subject to change.

    I think you have confused yourself as to what Pope Francis actually did or said... The Church's teaching on homosexuality has not changed. But even so, the Church's teaching on sexuality is a very small aspect of what it teaches (although you wouldn't guess that from the obsession shown towards it).

    Should the church get smaller I think it is far more likely that it will be a smaller, more fervent and decidedly counter cultural church, there are signs of this already.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    John Hutton wrote: »
    It is a concern in certain parts of the world, but this is not the first time this has happened and the solution is certainly not the changing of fundamental beliefs, not least because these represent fundamental truths and are not subject to change.

    Even in my lifetime I can think of many stories from the bible that were taught and considered by many as being literally true are now considered allegory.
    I think you have confused yourself as to what Pope Francis actually did or said... The Church's teaching on homosexuality has not changed. But even so, the Church's teaching on sexuality is a very small aspect of what it teaches (although you wouldn't guess that from the obsession shown towards it).

    Really? From the linked Irish Times article
    Pope Francis wrote:
    “Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it,” he said.

    “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that,” he said.

    further on we see this
    The church has also opposed civil union legislation, and Pope Benedict XVI, Francis’s predecessor, once wrote, “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

    That certainly seems to be to be a significant shift, in fact you could say that Pope's Francis and Benedict are diametrically opposed here. While the underlying doctrine may not have changed, the surrounding attitudes most certainly have.
    Should the church get smaller I think it is far more likely that it will be a smaller, more fervent and decidedly counter cultural church, there are signs of this already.

    A reduced and more concentrated church is certainly a possibility, though the cynic in me suspects that the RCC hierarchy would be extremely reluctant to relinquish their position of influence on society and hence strive to avoid this.


  • #188
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    Even in my lifetime I can think of many stories from the bible that were taught and considered by many as being literally true are now considered allegory.
    We are talking about fundamental beliefs and tenants of faith though. Not interpretation of stories from the Old testament.
    Really? From the linked Irish Times article

    further on we see this

    That certainly seems to be to be a significant shift, in fact you could say that Pope's Francis and Benedict are diametrically opposed here. While the underlying doctrine may not have changed, the surrounding attitudes most certainly have.
    There's a thread on this: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058124120

    Pope Francis has adopted a more pastoral approach that is clear, but the teaching remains the same - you won't see authorized blessings or gay marriages in Catholic Churches any time soon.

    But this is all beside the point, I do not believe that people will suddenly rush into the church if they start doing gay marriages. This is really insulting the intelligence of people and their belief or lack of belief in God.

    The church, if it did bend to the whims of modern society, changed its practices and ignored these laws and gave blessing and encouragement to any form of sinful behavior in an effort to seem kind to the sinner and to attract followers it would in fact be the opposite of kindness and would surely be ill judged.
    A reduced and more concentrated church is certainly a possibility, though the cynic in me suspects that the RCC hierarchy would be extremely reluctant to relinquish their position of influence on society and hence strive to avoid this.
    I'm not saying it will be adopted as a policy, but rather it is something will will develop. If the only people attending Mass etc. are doing so out of genuine belief rather than social obligation or habit it is inevitable that the church would become more concentrated and 'purified'. Perhaps it would expand again in the future, one would hope in a better way.


  • #189
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    John Hutton wrote: »
    They represent a cross section of protestant churches

    What of it? The make up of this cross section is irrelevant to my point. AGAIN unless you are speaking for your own church, and only your own church, it is not your place to declare what THEIR role is. That is for them to decide. Not you. Not me. Not Boards.ie
    John Hutton wrote: »
    I refer to the role of the church in God's plan, the church of course being the one 'set up' by Christ.

    Very vague which one you think you are talking about. IF it is your own church then as I already said.... you are perfectly free to tell us what your church sees it's own role to be. Though I would still move to ask them myself directly if I was interested, rather than take any one word for it from their congregation.

    But you do not get to do this for any other church. At all. And simply calling one church "the" church does not make it so either. Each person going to their church likely believes their church is the right one, with the one true word and path to god. They have faith theirs is the right one. You probably have the same for your own. Your faith does not trump theirs.

    The point again being that responding to someone giving a LIST of churches who allow same sex marriage with a comment about "the role" of "the church" is a bit irrelevant. It would be like responding to a list of variations on the game of football in the word with a comment like "The role of the ball in football is to be kicked".
    John Hutton wrote: »
    Of course, with you being a determined unbeliever (not to mention an unrepentant desecrator of the Eucharist) this won't make much sense to you.

    Not agreeing with your world view does not mean I can not understand your word view or make sense of it. You can pocket the ad hominem thanks.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    The entire thing stands or falls on the existence of God, and Jesus being true God and true Man.

    Except it does not stand or fall on just that. Because as I said above each follower of Jesus in other churches other than the one you call "the" church likely says exactly the same things as you do.

    Perhaps if this was specifically a forum dedicated to your brand of Christianity only you would have a point. But just in case I am in the wrong here I just re-read the charter and points 1 and 2 on it suggest I am not.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    (you have already formed an immovable - by man anyway - opinion on the subject of God)

    I am not sure why you feel the need to tell me what I think, rather than ask me what I think. But just to pull some of your straw out of the straw man.... I am aware of NO opinion or world view I have that is remotely "immovable". Every thing I hold to in my mind is subject to, and available for, change at any time.
    John Hutton wrote: »
    We are talking about fundamental beliefs and tenants of faith though.

    And the results of the surveys at the Bishops Conference in Ireland call into question what they actually are to be honest. With significant %s of Catholics not at all identifying with, or believing, many of the tenets of the faith. Including a surprising 8% of Catholics who do not even believe there is a god. And as you made clear above with an irrelevant side reference... you are already aware of my experience with Catholics having quite divergent opinions of the meaning and content of the Eucharist.

    It is not clear at all to me which beliefs are "fundamental" at all to any particular faith. It seems people can, and do, self identify with a faith even if they do not believe.... or sometimes even seem aware of.... much of it's content.


  • #190
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    John Hutton wrote: »
    We are talking about fundamental beliefs and tenants of faith though. Not interpretation of stories from the Old testament.

    Certainly in this country I think there has been an erosion of beliefs at all levels. This ranges from holding Old testament stories literally true to abandonment of religious belief in its entirety.
    There's a thread on this: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058124120

    Pope Francis has adopted a more pastoral approach that is clear, but the teaching remains the same - you won't see authorized blessings or gay marriages in Catholic Churches any time soon.

    But this is all beside the point, I do not believe that people will suddenly rush into the church if they start doing gay marriages. This is really insulting the intelligence of people and their belief or lack of belief in God.

    The church, if it did bend to the whims of modern society, changed its practices and ignored these laws and gave blessing and encouragement to any form of sinful behavior in an effort to seem kind to the sinner and to attract followers it would in fact be the opposite of kindness and would surely be ill judged.

    I agree entirely that increased acceptance of gay relationships, or even blessing gay marriage, will do little to attract more people to the church. I don't however think that's the point so much as trying to stem the flow of people away from the church at a time where society at large is entirely accepting of being gay.
    I'm not saying it will be adopted as a policy, but rather it is something will will develop. If the only people attending Mass etc. are doing so out of genuine belief rather than social obligation or habit it is inevitable that the church would become more concentrated and 'purified'. Perhaps it would expand again in the future, one would hope in a better way.

    Again, I tend to agree, but it could result in a considerably smaller church. In my opinion one of the main factors that sustains religious tradition in this country is the churches large scale involvement in the education system. A significantly numerically reduced church would lead to a proportionate exit from education. Over the course of a generation, this in turn would lead to a decimation in the number of regular church goers.

    I strongly suspect that Catholicism in this country at this point in time is as much a tradition as a belief system for many, which is strongly interwoven with the fabric of our society. Disentangling this to the extent that you are left with a church and laity comprising solely of devout believers has the potential to destroy both. I suspect there are many in the hierarchy, including Francis, who are cognizant of this and willing to make all sorts of comprises to avoid it.


  • #191
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    Certainly in this country I think there has been an erosion of beliefs at all levels. This ranges from holding Old testament stories literally true to abandonment of religious belief in its entirety.

    I agree entirely that increased acceptance of gay relationships, or even blessing gay marriage, will do little to attract more people to the church. I don't however think that's the point so much as trying to stem the flow of people away from the church at a time where society at large is entirely accepting of being gay.
    I would agree with the assessment of Frank Duff that the Catholic faith in Ireland during its height in the 20th Century was essentially a mile wide but only an inch deep, the daily attendance of Mass (or lack thereof) being a litmus for this.
    Again, I tend to agree, but it could result in a considerably smaller church. In my opinion one of the main factors that sustains religious tradition in this country is the churches large scale involvement in the education system. A significantly numerically reduced church would lead to a proportionate exit from education. Over the course of a generation, this in turn would lead to a decimation in the number of regular church goers.
    I see little evidence for your opinion, the vast majority of children who make their first communion or conformation are very rarely taken to Mass by their parents otherwise. For many baptism is a social occasion where the attendees clearly don't have any idea of what is going on beyond a day out. There is very little evidence that attendance at a 'catholic' school results in any attendance at Mass by students, aside from something like a graduation Mass.
    I strongly suspect that Catholicism in this country at this point in time is as much a tradition as a belief system for many, which is strongly interwoven with the fabric of our society. Disentangling this to the extent that you are left with a church and laity comprising solely of devout believers has the potential to destroy both. I suspect there are many in the hierarchy, including Francis, who are cognizant of this and willing to make all sorts of comprises to avoid it.
    Obviously the faithful want more people to attend Mass and practice the religion - it would be most cruel and a sin to basically go "I'm alright Jack" and not care about all the people missing out on the Good News. I suspect you have some wishful thinking there when it comes to "compromises", you will not see any changes in the fundamental teachings of the Church, presentation or emphasis may change in line with the priorities of the hierarchy and context of the culture (as they do with individual priests) it is a, eh, broad church after all. It would be most cruel to lie to people and teach that sin is actually ok just to try and get them to go to Mass. Not only would this be a grave sin, it also wouldn't work.

    Some of the older generation of Bishops and Archbishops (looking at one in particular :) ) are clearly shell shocked that so much has changed and have no idea what to do. But others, especially the younger clergy and many young Catholics are up for the challenge.

    I'm not too concerned for the future of the Church.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    John Hutton wrote: »
    I would agree with the assessment of Frank Duff that the Catholic faith in Ireland during its height in the 20th Century was essentially a mile wide but only an inch deep, the daily attendance of Mass (or lack thereof) being a litmus for this.

    Seems like a reasonable assessment.
    I see little evidence for your opinion, the vast majority of children who make their first communion or conformation are very rarely taken to Mass by their parents otherwise. For many baptism is a social occasion where the attendees clearly don't have any idea of what is going on beyond a day out. There is very little evidence that attendance at a 'catholic' school results in any attendance at Mass by students, aside from something like a graduation Mass.

    Again, I tend to agree. The reason there is very little evidence here is that the vast majority of students attend 'catholic' schools so this is a difficult variable to work with in terms of causation. If you were to flip this and ask how many adults who attend mass regularly didn't attend a 'catholic' school you would get a correspondingly small number for the same reason. The question is though that if the burden of preparing children for confirmation and communion was shifted from the education system to the family, how many families simply wouldn't bother? In saying that these children would never be regular mass goers on the basis that their parents are not implies that declining mass attendance can only continue in one direction.

    Obviously the faithful want more people to attend Mass and practice the religion - it would be most cruel and a sin to basically go "I'm alright Jack" and not care about all the people missing out on the Good News. I suspect you have some wishful thinking there when it comes to "compromises", you will not see any changes in the fundamental teachings of the Church, presentation or emphasis may change in line with the priorities of the hierarchy and context of the culture (as they do with individual priests) it is a, eh, broad church after all. It would be most cruel to lie to people and teach that sin is actually ok just to try and get them to go to Mass. Not only would this be a grave sin, it also wouldn't work.

    As you say, it is a broad church. If society has an appetite for a church more closely aligned to prevalent societal attitudes I don't doubt there are those that will meet that need. I argue that this isn't wishful thinking on my part as the church has little to no influence on my life or my families at this point in time.
    Some of the older generation of Bishops and Archbishops (looking at one in particular :) ) are clearly shell shocked that so much has changed and have no idea what to do. But others, especially the younger clergy and many young Catholics are up for the challenge.

    I'm not too concerned for the future of the Church.

    Nor I ;)


  • #193
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    smacl wrote: »
    Seems like a reasonable assessment.

    Again, I tend to agree. The reason there is very little evidence here is that the vast majority of students attend 'catholic' schools so this is a difficult variable to work with in terms of causation. If you were to flip this and ask how many adults who attend mass regularly didn't attend a 'catholic' school you would get a correspondingly small number for the same reason. The question is though that if the burden of preparing children for confirmation and communion was shifted from the education system to the family, how many families simply wouldn't bother? In saying that these children would never be regular mass goers on the basis that their parents are not implies that declining mass attendance can only continue in one direction.
    The reality is that the majority of 'catholic' schools teach very little about Catholicism. People moan about how Irish is taught and how you know little after years of studying it, well after attending primary and secondary 'catholic' schools most students know very little about the faith beyond the general story of Jesus. I see no issue with preparation for sacraments happening outside of schools, or, if in schools, only within a relatively small number of truly catholic schools where the faith is actually practiced (and parents send their kids there for that reason). Every so often a priest suggests that students should not have confirmation or communion if their parents don't practice and the child never goes to mass. Invariably he is shouted down by the parents, often viciously.

    My point is that schools, as they are, have almost no influence on Mass attendance. A decline will continue, demographics certainly suggest that, but it is certainly possible that, as has happened before, it may increase again in the future. It is young adults I think who the church should evangelize, and it will grow from there. Or maybe it wont. But I think it extremely unlikely that the Church would disappear altogether, it certainly hasn't in other countries were far less people attend Mass.
    As you say, it is a broad church. If society has an appetite for a church more closely aligned to prevalent societal attitudes I don't doubt there are those that will meet that need. I argue that this isn't wishful thinking on my part as the church has little to no influence on my life or my families at this point in time.
    Oh I'm sure there are, that's why there are so many protestant churches, but following the prevailing wind of a culture of a certain time rarely works, certainly if, as I alluded to previously, it's wrong and contradicts fundamental truths.


  • #194
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    John Hutton wrote: »
    My point is that schools, as they are, have almost no influence on Mass attendance. A decline will continue, demographics certainly suggest that, but it is certainly possible that, as has happened before, it may increase again in the future. It is young adults I think who the church should evangelize, and it will grow from there. Or maybe it wont. But I think it extremely unlikely that the Church would disappear altogether, it certainly hasn't in other countries were far less people attend Mass.

    You say that, but I'm not seeing any evidence to support it. For example, who is to say that if the religious ethos, as it is now, were to be removed from schools that the decline in religious observance would not significantly increase? I agree that this is something already in decline, as evidenced here https://faithsurvey.co.uk/irish-census.html , but while religious ethos will not halt this effect there is no reason to assume it is not slowing it. As you say, any growth is dependent on getting youth involvement, something the Jesuits were all to well aware of. Schools provide a captive audience here, lose that and how else would you reach it? I rather doubt it would be street preachers.
    Oh I'm sure there are, that's why there are so many protestant churches, but following the prevailing wind of a culture of a certain time rarely works, certainly if, as I alluded to previously, it's wrong and contradicts fundamental truths.

    Only time will tell on that one. I strongly suspect that any church which is not at the heart of its community is bound to perish.


  • #195
    ChrisJ84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭ChrisJ84


    John Hutton wrote: »
    Oh I'm sure there are, that's why there are so many protestant churches, but following the prevailing wind of a culture of a certain time rarely works, certainly if, as I alluded to previously, it's wrong and contradicts fundamental truths.
    smacl wrote: »
    Only time will tell on that one. I strongly suspect that any church which is not at the heart of its community is bound to perish.

    This resonates a lot with me, and is the reason that the so-called "mainline" Protestant churches are in seemingly terminal decline. If you only offer what the world has to offer, then why on earth would people bother coming to church? Following cultural winds can give churches a short term boost, but in the past this has always faded in time and there's no reason to think that anything has changed.

    In my experience, the churches that are vibrant and growing are those that know what they believe and why, and who genuinely seek to love and serve the people in their communities. Both are equally important, and provide a something that is much more compelling.


Advertisement