Could you go out with a religeous person?

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I do feel sorry about it, and we arent doing anything at all seeing as he is away for a year.

Well now you are just contradicting yourself. You feel sorry about it but you are still doing it and you don't think God minds and you feel ok about it?

I don't giving a flying fig what you do with your sex life, and I don't mean this as a slag, simply as a matter of fact comment, but this is exactly the sort of thing that puts a lot of atheists/non-believers off the idea of going out with a religious person.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Maybe it's just something they personally disagree with.

I'm sure it is. But you don't get to "personally disagree" with God, do you?

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Maybe they go out of their way to do other good things.

Irrelevant. It isn't a question of building up enough points (good things) to get into heaven. Christianity already teaches you are not worthy of getting into heaven, you only get in because of Jesus' sacrifice and God's grace/forgiveness and your repentance.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

What I don't understand is why yourself and Goduznt Xzst are jumping in to judge midlandsmissus, under rules which you don't subscribe to, when from the outset she has never claimed to be seriously religious, and has made it clear she has no wish to force her beliefs on anyone.

Because I wouldn't want to go out with her/him ... and the purpose of this thread is explaining why atheists may not want to go out with a religious person.

The assertion given a few times is that there is no good reason to not want to go out with a religious person. Based on this little back and forth I can think of several.

Again that sounds like a big slag, it really isn't meant to be. I'm sure midlandsmissus wouldn't want to go out with me either (the arrogant fecker that I am).

The purpose is to simply highlight that midlandsmissus attitude to religion (which is shared by quite a lot of religious people these days) would wreck my head if I was going out with her. That could well be my problem, but there you go.

While I totally disagree with Christianity, I would probably find it easier to go out with someone like PDN who actually takes his religion as it is.

Zombrex

Malari wrote: »

It's more about belief in god really I think.

what is the "it's" you refer to?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

While I totally disagree with Christianity, I would probably find it easier to go out with someone like PDN who actually takes his religion as it is.

Thank you Wicknight, I had no idea you felt that way. I'm flattered, but if I took my religion as it is then I wouldn't go out with another man. :eek:

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

While I totally disagree with Christianity, I would probably find it easier to go out with someone like PDN who actually takes his religion as it is.

No offence Wicknight - but I totally, completely, do not believe that.

As you've already alluded to, most Irish "Christians (read: Catholics)" are of the a la carte variety. So to suggest you'd go out with a celebate Christian over your average common-or-garden Irish lass is stretching it imo.

Malari

Wicknight wrote: »

what is the "it's" you refer to?

The "religious" description in the thread. At least that's what I inferred. If someone describes themselves as religious the first thing I know about them is they believe in a god. That for me, is enough. I don't really care what little rules they do or don't enforce in their religious lives.

midlandsmissus

Wicknight, you know what, you're right, you would drive me mad if I went out with you too!

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Em, have you looked around Ireland today? Who believes that anymore? I believe it was a fear originally instilled in young people by the catholic church to have more control over them, and I certainly wouldn't call myself a catholic.

It doesn't matter who "believes it anymore", the Bible hasn't changed (at least not in the last few generations :rolleyes:), peoples willingness to obey it has. As societies opinions change so will their understanding of the Bible to fit this.

You are of a generation who believes that God doesn't care much about premarital sex, even still you'd probably imagine a person who claims to be a Christian but who sleeps with a new man every night as less spiritual than you.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Oh come on Goduznt. This is a ridiculous argument. As if you really expected me to be celibate.

I honestly did. Coming off your thread about whether or not you could be forgiven I thought you where an individual worried about making more mistakes that might hamper your chances of getting immortality.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

You know if you went into a relationship with a Christian they wouldnt be celibate. That is not the done thing in todays times. People were very afraid of the catholic church long ago and they are not anymore.

It's really nothing to do with fear of the Catholic Church, most if not all Christian denominations view it as a serious sin if premeditated.

Dades wrote: »

What I don't understand is why yourself and Goduznt Xzst are jumping in to judge midlandsmissus, under rules which you don't subscribe to, when from the outset she has never claimed to be seriously religious, and has made it clear she has no wish to force her beliefs on anyone.

Don't forget Zillah

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

I've never heard of a Christian interpretation that says you can keep doing what ever sin you like and you will be forgiven at the end of it all.

There are such interpretations, generally known as "once-saved-always-saved" -- OSAS for short.

I believe that there are a few christian posters here who assert OSAS: JC, rtdh and a few more (am obviously open to correction here).

midlandsmissus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It doesn't matter who "believes it anymore", the Bible hasn't changed (at least not in the last few generations :rolleyes:), peoples willingness to obey it has. As societies opinions change so will their understanding of the Bible to fit this.

You are of a generation who believes God has no problem with premarital sex, even still you'd probably imagine a person who claims to be a Christian but who sleeps with a new man every night as less spiritual than you.



I honestly did. Coming off your thread about whether or not you could be forgiven I thought you where an individual worried about making more mistakes that might hamper your chances of getting immortality.



It's really nothing to do with fear of the Catholic Church, most if not all Christian denominations view it as a serious sin if premeditated. Again can you name the denomination you are a member of that says premarital sex is allowed?



Don't forget Zillah

Goduznt,

Maybe you could just give me a break. I have recently turned Christian, so I am trying to still learn everything. I actually am celibate at the moment, though it is due to geographical location rather than choice.I dont know how I'll feel when my boyfriend gets back.

I was very tempted there to say to Wicknight that 'Ha I am celibate and repenting!' but it would be a lie as it isn't down to choice. I can say honestly I do feel bad about doing it before marriage, I am not doing it at the minute so I have time to mull over it, and I have to do more research into everything.

'even still you'd probably imagine a person who claims to be a Christian but who sleeps with a new man every night as less spiritual than you.'

I wouldn't think of them as less spiritual than me at all. It's not for me to judge anyone else.

midlandsmissus

Wicknight wrote: »

Because I wouldn't want to go out with her/him ... and the purpose of this thread is explaining why atheists may not want to go out with a religious person.

The assertion given a few times is that there is no good reason to not want to go out with a religious person. Based on this little back and forth I can think of several.

Again that sounds like a big slag, it really isn't meant to be. I'm sure midlandsmissus wouldn't want to go out with me either (the arrogant fecker that I am).

The purpose is to simply highlight that midlandsmissus attitude to religion (which is shared by quite a lot of religious people these days) would wreck my head if I was going out with her. That could well be my problem, but there you go.

While I totally disagree with Christianity, I would probably find it easier to go out with someone like PDN who actually takes his religion as it is.

Wicknight,

Basically you're saying that unless some-one follows the religion to the letter you wouldn't go out with them. So you'd go out with an extreme Christian then? No you wouldn't, and that is where you are full of contradictions.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

No offence Wicknight - but I totally, completely, do not believe that.

Easier I said, rather than easy. You know, the way I would find it easier to withstand torture if I was having my toenails ripped out rather than a drill into my arm. :pac::pac:

Dades wrote: »

As you've already alluded to, most Irish "Christians (read: Catholics)" are of the a la carte variety. So to suggest you'd go out with a celebate Christian over your average common-or-garden Irish lass is stretching it imo.

Well that implies sex is the most important thing...

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that implies sex is the most important thing...

... in the list of things frowned upon by the church. Which is what this is all about, no?

Tim Robbins

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Most Christians would feel a person who claims to be a Christian but who also has premeditated premarital sex is living a life of sin.

Not sure where your evidence for that is.
Would you like to produce it?

If midlandsmissus is a member of a denomination that allows permarital sex I'd be interested in learning of it and how they justify it.

Follow the debate on homosexuality in the Anglican Church. It's good example of all this.

If they are choosing to ignore this and make up their own personalized religion and beliefs they are doing so so that they can get the benefits of that religion without making the necessary changes to their own life ergo they are trying to have their cake and eat it. There is nothing negative about that addage, it is perfectly apt.

Christianity is very much a subjective paradigm. So many denominations, interpretations and translations. All you are doing is treating something as if it's immune from these characteristics and then treating this lady like a hypocrite by putting a negative spin on it.

Gambler

Not sure where your evidence for that is.
Would you like to produce it?

http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm
http://www.new-life.net/premarital.htm
http://www.bible.ca/s-premarital-sex.htm

A small sampling of the millions of sites

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Don't forget Zillah

Ah here now, I was never beating her up about her religion's internal rules. I just thinks she's worse than Hitler for letting her boyfriend go to Hell :pac:

Stercus Accidit

My answer to OP, no.

Though I wouldn't go out with a dunce in the first place so a bit of logical conversation later and a new happy free athiest/agnostic is born, I can respect either.

Tim Robbins

Gambler wrote: »

http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm
http://www.new-life.net/premarital.htm
http://www.bible.ca/s-premarital-sex.htm

A small sampling of the millions of sites

And here's "a small sampling of the millions of sites which endorse creationism":

http://www.creationmuseum.org/
http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Creationism-Against-Evolutionism
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

So by your logic, most Christians believe that too.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

... in the list of things frowned upon by the church.

no, in the things I look for in a partner

PDN

robindch wrote: »

There are such interpretations, generally known as "once-saved-always-saved" -- OSAS for short.

I believe that there are a few christian posters here who assert OSAS: JC, rtdh and a few more (am obviously open to correction here).

While I do not hold to the OSAS doctrine, in fairness to those who do it should be pointed out that their beliefs are a bit more nuanced than that.

Most adherents to OSAS would believe that someone who claimed to be a Christian and then practised gross sin was actually demonstrating that their conversion was a sham in the first place.

I've never actually met a Christian who believed that someone could be a genuine believer, then practice immorality, yet still retain their salvation. However, if you were to look hard enough (probably in Mississippi or Texas) then you might find such a person.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I've never actually met a Christian who believed that someone could be a genuine believer, then practice immorality, yet still retain their salvation. However, if you were to look hard enough (probably in Mississippi or Texas) then you might find such a person.

But I think your definition of Christian would differ to others. I consider myself to have used to have been a Christian but you don't. Also, morality is also a subjective term. Even in a Christian sense. You can divorce if you are a Protestant but not if you are a Catholic. I know, I am beginning to sound like I just sounded in another post. I am reading this book at the moment. It's just excellent. Book of the year. Recommended. Even to all the Christians.

Gambler

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And here's "a small sampling of the millions of sites which endorse creationism":

http://www.creationmuseum.org/
http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Creationism-Against-Evolutionism
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

So by your logic, most Christians believe that too.

From what I can see get enough christians together that believe pre marital sex is a sin they do end up mostly believing in creationism too:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

Gambler

I should add that by calling yourself a christian you say that you believe the teachings and lend your name to that organisation (like joining a union only with unions you all get to vote on big decisions).

Show me a number of christian faiths that teach pre marital sex isn't a sin and that have a total number of followers bigger than the christian faiths that teach that it is a sin..

This is the biggest problem I have with people that call themselves christian without thinking about the consequence of that action. You may have no problem with premarital sex but by calling yourself a christian you allow your church to say "We have x million members who belief pre marital sex is a sin so the only sex education you should have in school is abstinence programs" and then you wonder how you end up with situations like we have in america where the only federal funding schools can get for sex ed is if they make it abstinence only!

Tim Robbins

Gambler wrote: »

I should add that by calling yourself a christian you say that you believe the teachings and lend your name to that organisation (like joining a union only with unions you all get to vote on big decisions).

I was speaking to a learned friend recently who told me there are over 300 different versions of that organisation each with their own slant in Northern Ireland alone.

The problem with some of these people, they are so imbued in their own slant they think that is no at all.

Show me a number of christian faiths that teach pre marital sex isn't a sin and that have a total number of followers bigger than the christian faiths that teach that it is a sin..

I am not going to check the 300 versions in Northen Ireland and the hundreds of versions around the globe, if that's ok.

This is the biggest problem I have with people that call themselves christian without thinking about the consequence of that action. You may have no problem with premarital sex but by calling yourself a christian you allow your church to say "We have x million members who belief pre marital sex is a sin so the only sex education you should have in school is abstinence programs" and then you wonder how you end up with situations like we have in america where the only federal funding schools can get for sex ed is if they make it abstinence only!

There's no consequence to what you call yourself. There are consequences to what you do and what you don't do.

That said, I agree there are big problems not promoting the use of condoms and Churches have, in some respects been at fault for this.

Gambler

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I was speaking to a learned friend recently who told me there are over 300 different versions of that organisation each with their own slant in Northern Ireland alone.

The problem with some of these people, they are so imbued in their own slant they think that is no at all.

Yes, but I would dare say that there are certain principals that are shared across the majority of them..

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am not going to check the 300 versions in Northen Ireland and the hundreds of versions around the globe, if that's ok.

Hey, I never thought you would, my point is that from what I know of there are no christian churches that actually say pre-marital sex is not a sin, if there were I'm sure there would have been a load of press from all the other faiths saying all sorts of things :P

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's no consequence to what you call yourself. There are consequences to what you do and what you don't do.

That said, I agree there are big problems not promoting the use of condoms and Churches have, in some respects been at fault for this.

I'm sorry but I take huge issue with this. Of course there are more direct consequences that you can see yourself in what you do and don't do but you can't honestly claim there are no consequences to lending your name to a cause.

Signing a petition saying that we should rename Ireland "Little England" would be no different (to me) than joining a religion or political party that has that as one of it's aims.

The core of my point is that if you call yourself a christian (or a muslim, budhist, jew or any other religion) you announce that you support a set of beliefs about how people should lead their life.

If you tell me you don't think that pre marital sex is a sin, that a woman has a right to choose, that evolution happened all on its own without any "help" from a greater power, that a couple should be allowed to divorce and remarry, that gays should have a right to marry or any other one of a hundred different generally commonly held beliefs then I don't see how you can say you are a christian..

(By the way, I'm not necessarily saying this to Tim Robbins, I mean this in a general way to anyone)

missyb

Hey, I go to mass on Sundays and pray every day,my boyfriend has no beliefs what so ever,nor so his family so I guess I was a surprise when he brought me home! I dont try to "convert" or "Preach" or anything of the sort! My Mother is very religious, and the most warm,open person you could meet, my dad is agnostic and considerably more stuck in his ways than my mother! My brother is completely atheist as is his wife so my niece is not christened, I totally respect their decisons as they do mine and my mothers and my dads.My sister who is also agnostic is married to a man who was raised Catholic and is now a quaker.

The people you are talking about are fundementalist who take everything literally and to the extreme, the way relgious people are described here on this thread is the same way those "bible bashers" would describe "non believers", completely stero-typical and without anytolerance or openmindedness what so ever!
I think alot of people on boards have more in common with these people than they realise. I have no time for fundementalists just as I have no time for people who cant stand anyone elses spiritual beliefs, these groups are cut from the same cloth as far as Im concerned, too alike in their bigotry and thats why they hate each other.....My family and my boyfriend are a melting pot of different beliefs/non beliefs and I love that ,the narrowmindedness of this thread astounds me!.... Alas I have to go now and say 9 million hail marys and beat myself to a pulp for I am a sinner,....thats what you expect to hear from me right!!?

Gambler

missyb wrote: »

Hey, I go to mass on Sundays and pray every day,my boyfriend has no beliefs what so ever,nor so his family so I guess I was a surprise when he brought me home! I dont try to "convert" or "Preach" or anything of the sort! My Mother is very religious, and the most warm,open person you could meet, my dad is agnostic and considerably more stuck in his ways than my mother! My brother is completely atheist as is his wife so my niece is not christened, I totally respect their decisons as they do mine and my mothers and my dads.My sister who is also agnostic is married to a man who was raised Catholic and is now a quaker.

The people you are talking about are fundementalist who take everything literally and to the extreme, the way relgious people are described here on this thread is the same way those "bible bashers" would describe "non believers", completely stero-typical and without anytolerance or openmindedness what so ever!
I think alot of people on boards have more in common with these people than they realise. I have no time for fundementalists just as I have no time for people who cant stand anyone elses spiritual beliefs, these groups are cut from the same cloth as far as Im concerned, too alike in their bigotry and thats why they hate each other.....My family and my boyfriend are a melting pot of different beliefs/non beliefs and I love that ,the narrowmindedness of this thread astounds me!.... Alas I have to go now and say 9 million hail marys and beat myself to a pulp for I am a sinner,....thats what you expect to hear from me right!!?

Hehe like everything you do get extremes on both sides, most of us just ignore the extremes

pH

Gambler wrote: »

Yes, but I would dare say that there are certain principals that are shared across the majority of them..

And I would dare say you'd be hard pressed to name one.

Gambler

pH wrote: »

And I would dare say you'd be hard pressed to name one.

There is a god and Jesus was his son?

Gambler

I do feel I should again point out I'm married to a christian. In fact her full time job is as a member of a religious choir.

I feel like people are getting the impression I am a militant anti christian or some such, that isn't the fact at all.

I did respond to what Tim Robbins said about there being no consequence to what you call yourself with my personal opinion. It's an issue that bugs me how many people call themselves catholic in Ireland without thinking about what the consequences of that decision are..

JimiTime

To the OP. I think it would be very difficult to go out with anyone who had either disdain or little interest in something I was passionate about. My Christianity is the most important thing in my life, so rather than it even being a preference, it would be very unwise to settle down with someone who was a polar opposite. I'd be looking ahead to children etc. I am passionate about music also, and the same would apply. Before I met my wife, my longest relationship was 1 month. The reason usually being their lack of interest in either music or things of a spiritual nature. For me it just couldn't work.

pH

Gambler wrote: »

There is a god and Jesus was his son?

I was being a smart-ass pedant. You probably meant principle, but it just about works with principal

Gambler

Originally Posted by Goduznt Xzst
Most Christians would feel a person who claims to be a Christian but who also has premeditated premarital sex is living a life of sin.

Not sure where your evidence for that is.
Would you like to produce it?

To get back to\expand on the original point when it comes to pre marital sex here is the 2006 census break down of christians that they track:

Roman Catholic 3,681,446
CoI (Incl. Protestant) 125,585
Presbyterian 23,546
Methodist 12,160
Total: 3,842,737

The total population of Ireland is 4,239,848 so you can safely say that the majority of christians in Ireland fall into one of those categories.

Here's what I could find on their positions on Pre Marital Sex:

Roman Catholic:
Can't find the official wording but Sex before marriage is definitely not allowed (Will keep searching for the exact text from the vatican but that site is nasty to find stuff on)
Presbyterian:
Not sure if this is the "official" word of the church but I've found this quote on a few presbyterian sites: "He has made it sin to engage in sexual activities outside the marriage bond."
Methodists:
"Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond."

I think I can now safely say that the majority of christians in Ireland believe that pre marital sex is a sin?

Edit: Forgot to look up COI\Protestant\Anglican and in fairness to them I did find this quote:
"Asked if the Anglican Church considered pre-marital sex as a sin, Dr Neill said: "I think that making hard and fast statements about listing things as sins would be less common nowadays. There would be those who speak out clearly saying it is a sin, but I think that we would accept that the majority of those coming for marriage are probably already living together." However, Dr Neill said he would regard promiscuity as a sin "because it dehumanises people" and he felt the nature of relationships was "very important"."

What I take from that is that he isn't willing to say either way himself. He seems to basically be saying that it's not right but we'll allow it..

Gambler

pH wrote: »

I was being a smart-ass pedant. You probably meant principle, but it just about works with principal

Hehe fair enough, what if I were to say:
Yes, but I would dare say that there are certain beliefs that are shared across the majority of christians..

Tim Robbins

Gambler wrote: »

Hey, I never thought you would, my point is that from what I know of there are no christian churches that actually say pre-marital sex is not a sin, if there were I'm sure there would have been a load of press from all the other faiths saying all sorts of things :P

Yes but avoid the false dichotomy. Just because they don't teach pre-marital sex is not not a sin, doesn't mean it's top of their teaching.

The reality is I would suspect a spectrumof opinions amongst church goers.

I'm sorry but I take huge issue with this. Of course there are more direct consequences that you can see yourself in what you do and don't do but you can't honestly claim there are no consequences to lending your name to a cause.

A name is only a way of referencing. Action is more meaningful.

Signing a petition saying that we should rename Ireland "Little England" would be no different (to me) than joining a religion or political party that has that as one of it's aims.

Indeed. And signing a petition is doing an action. It's not just calling yourself
something.

(By the way, I'm not necessarily saying this to Tim Robbins, I mean this in a general way to anyone)

Oh don't worry. I'm as atheist as they come.

Gambler

Yes but avoid the false dichotomy. Just because they don't teach pre-marital sex is not not a sin, doesn't mean it's top of their teaching.

I never said it was top of their teachings, I was saying that if you call yourself roman catholic it's a statement of beliefs that include no sex before marriage..

Indeed. And signing a petition is doing an action. It's not just calling yourself something.

Surely you can accept that calling yourself something lends that "thing" "power".

If you call yourself a Christian are you not lending your name to that organisations beliefs?

garrincha62

Gambler wrote: »

To get back to\expand on the original point when it comes to pre marital sex here is the 2006 census break down of christians that they track:

Roman Catholic 3,681,446
CoI (Incl. Protestant) 125,585
Presbyterian 23,546
Methodist 12,160
Total: 3,842,737

The total population of Ireland is 4,239,848 so you can safely say that the majority of christians in Ireland fall into one of those categories.

One disappointing thing about the 2006 Census, and subsequent publication which gave analysis regarding religion was that the second largest grouping that answered the "Religion" question ticked the "No religion or belief" box. This was not reflected in the commentary about religion, which I thought was a shame.

Gambler

Well, the no religion section was 186,318 people, hardly a huge percentage of the population, here's the details for anyone interested:

Roman Catholic 3,681,446
Church of Ireland (incl. Protestant) 125,585
Presbyterian 23,546
Methodist 12,160
Jewish 1,930
Other stated religions 138,541
No religion 186,318
Not stated 70,322

Total 4,239,848

Personally I think it's a good thing that the no religion number is increasing but it's not increasing that more rapidly than any other and a lot of that increas can be seen as a movement from the "not stated" column to the "no religion" if you compare the numbers to 2002:

2002 Numbers:
Roman Catholic 3,462,606
Church of Ireland (incl. Protestant) 115,611
Presbyterian 20,582
Methodist 10,033
Jewish 1,790
Other stated religions 89,223
No religion 138,264
Not stated 79,094

Total 3,917,203

pH

Gambler wrote: »

Personally I think it's a good thing that the no religion number is increasing but it's not increasing that more rapidly than any other and a lot of that increas can be seen as a movement from the "not stated" column to the "no religion" if you compare the numbers to 2002:

Using your figures the % of the population specifying "no religion" has increased from 3.53% to 4.53% (an increase in real terms of 35%) whereas the % of Catholics has dropped from 88.4% to 86.8% (an increase in real terms of about 6%). So it's not true to say that "it's not increasing that more rapidly than any other".

As to the other point, the drop in "not stated" doesn't start to cover the difference, and it's pure speculation on your part that even if it did that it's atheists deciding 4 years later to now check the "no religion" box.

I myself think the numbers would be even higher if it wasn't for those who decided atheism was a religion and refused to tick the "no religion" box!
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055224691
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055127991

Gambler

pH wrote: »

Using your figures the % of the population specifying "no religion" has increased from 3.53% to 4.53% (an increase in real terms of 35%) whereas the % of Catholics has dropped from 88.4% to 86.8% (an increase in real terms of about 6%). So it's not true to say that "it's not increasing that more rapidly than any other".

Ahh but the "Other stated Religion" has increased by about 50,000 people, if I'm right (and I may not be, working it out roughly in my head) that's about the same percentage increase. Don't get me wrong, I'm enouraged by the numbers!

pH wrote: »

As to the other point, the drop in "not stated" doesn't start to cover the difference, and it's pure speculation on your part that even if it did that it's atheists deciding 4 years later to now check the "no religion" box.

I myself think the numbers would be even higher if it wasn't for those who decided atheism was a religion and refused to tick the "no religion" box!
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055224691
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055127991

They decided atheism is a religion? Now that's just silly!

PDN

Gambler wrote: »

Ahh but the "Other stated Religion" has increased by about 50,000 people, if I'm right (and I may not be, working it out roughly in my head) that's about the same percentage increase. Don't get me wrong, I'm enouraged by the numbers!

They decided atheism is a religion? Now that's just silly!

The census figures are a bit of a joke. I'm classed as being "other religion" because the question is slanted towards the so-called 4 main churches. I am in a Christian Church whose membership (and Sunday attendance) is more than double the combined membership of Presbyterians, Methodists and Church of Ireland in our town. I know of similar churches in the same situation all over the country.

The census figures are indeed of some use in tracking the numbers of the so-called "4 main churches" (in reality the one main church and 3 minority groups) but give no realistic picture of other Christians, agnostics or atheists.

ChocolateSauce

PDN wrote: »

The census figures are a bit of a joke. I'm classed as being "other religion" because the question is slanted towards the so-called 4 main churches. I am in a Christian Church whose membership (and Sunday attendance) is more than double the combined membership of Presbyterians, Methodists and Church of Ireland in our town. I know of similar churches in the same situation all over the country.

The census figures are indeed of some use in tracking the numbers of the so-called "4 main churches" (in reality the one main church and 3 minority groups) but give no realistic picture of other Christians, agnostics or atheists.

Which church are you a member of, PDN?

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Which church are you a member of, PDN?

A Pentecostal/Evangelical Church.

I have a good reason for retaining some anonymity (of which Dades,as the mod of this forum, is aware) but a number of the regular posters know who I am and have correctly identified my church from clues that I've scattered around.

Goduznt Xzst

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Not sure where your evidence for that is.
Would you like to produce it?

You accept that the vast majority of Christians view premarital sex as a sin, yes? You have not argued with this, rather you are arguing that most don't view it as a serious sin. Then what is your argument here? Proof? Why do I need to provide it if you already accept what I said as true.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Christianity is very much a subjective paradigm. So many denominations, interpretations and translations. All you are doing is treating something as if it's immune from these characteristics and then treating this lady like a hypocrite by putting a negative spin on it.

This was my point. Christianity is very subjective if you do not tie yourself to a strict creed. Which lends itself to a very "have your cake and eat it" religion. Whereby you obey the aspects you like and choose not to obey the aspects you don't. You keep harping on about it being negative but this is the religion she is practicing. She is cherry picking the parts of the bible that make her feel most comfortable and cause as little disruption to her life and then calling herself a Christian by following the bits and pieces she's patched together.

Admittedly, yes, this is true for the majority of Christians which is why it is so hypocritical. You could speak to the individuals of a congregation of any Christian sect and each would have their own opinions on sins that God doesn't care about and ones he definitely does. Each will have interpreted the bible in their own way, one which sits most comfortably with their own view of morality.

garrincha62

Gambler wrote: »

Well, the no religion section was 186,318 people, hardly a huge percentage of the population....

Gambler, my point being that the second largest portion of the population that responded to the question was not mentioned. While the number was not huge in comparison to RC, it was still larger than any other single religion. The increase of people ticking atheist/no religion or belief has increased. And in light of declining mass attendance, more questioning and open society etc, I was surprised and disappointed that this was not mentioned.

In response to PDN, I don't think that the Census is biased or geared towards any one particular religion as such. Remember, the people that form the census questions are civil servants and statisticians. They use previous censuses as guidelines. The CSO also advertise for submissions from the public in regard to changing questions, adding questions, suggestions etc. In comparison to other Censuses, the Irish census is quite wide ranging.

In relation to the religion groupings, it is simply a case of there not being enough space to put every church in. If you really want to find out how many members of a sect/religion there is you could contact the CSO and request they do the research for you (which they will do for a fee).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

A Pentecostal/Evangelical Church.

I have a good reason for retaining some anonymity (of which Dades,as the mod of this forum, is aware) but a number of the regular posters know who I am and have correctly identified my church from clues that I've scattered around.

I suppose it's near that Football team you support...

Anyway, just wondering where are most of your flock coming from?
x - Catholic, x - Presbyterian, x - CoI, immigrants?

Tim Robbins

Gambler wrote: »

Surely you can accept that calling yourself something lends that "thing" "power".

Yeah, fair point.
All I am saying is many people who call themselves Christians have sex before marriage. So can you make the point that they're hypocrites?
Well I just don't think that's clear cut. But of course, if they are annoying you about their Christianity and fail to see the lack of an objective and precise universally agreed definition for Christianity, of course you can call them a hypocrite :-)

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I suppose it's near that Football team you support...

Anyway, just wondering where are most of your flock coming from?
x - Catholic, x - Presbyterian, x - CoI, immigrants?

At least 50% of our congregation would be immigrants. A majority of our members would be former Catholics. For many of them their Catholicism was purely a cultural thing & they were effectively secular/nonreligious. We have about 50 former Muslims (most of them are immigrants).
Most of our youth were atheist or agnostic before they accepted Christ.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

At least 50% of our congregation would be immigrants. A majority of our members would be former Catholics. For many of them their Catholicism was purely a cultural thing & they were effectively secular/nonreligious. We have about 50 former Muslims (most of them are immigrants).
Most of our youth were atheist or agnostic before they accepted Christ.

How appalling. Shame on you sir. I take solace in the fact that you are a dying breed.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

How appalling. Shame on you sir. I take solace in the fact that you are a dying breed.

Not quite sure what you could possibly find shameful or appalling.

As for being a dying breed - in your dreams. We are growing rapidly both worldwide and in Ireland. Like a number of other similar churches we're having to run multiple services on Sundays because we can't cram any more people into our building.