Why did André Frossard believe in God.

alex73

I would have thought that a man as educated as André and from a Family who educated him as a atheist would not have converted to Catholicism.

What is the reason why he converted? (or as I would say found God)

Ickle Magoo

I have a friend who's father is a minister, she lived at the manse and was raised in a very religious household. She and her brother are atheists - both very intelligent and went to oxbridge...

alex73

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have a friend who's father is a minister, she lived at the manse and was raised in a very religious household. She and her brother are atheists - both very intelligent and went to oxbridge...

So should we read in the pattern that kids from Religious families are prone to becoming atheists and those from Atheist families are prone to becoming religious?

Ickle Magoo

I don't think it suggests anything of the kind, I think it's just more evidence of the rather obvious fact that most decisions, choices and paths in life that we seek out are based on a multitude of factors, not just familial influence...

mikhail

alex73 wrote: »

So should we read in the pattern that kids from Religious families are prone to becoming atheists and those from Atheist families are prone to becoming religious?

No.

alex73

mikhail wrote: »

No.

??

mikhail

There's no need to quote a big image like that. I explained the image previously here.

midlandsmissus

alex73 wrote: »

So should we read in the pattern that kids from Religious families are prone to becoming atheists and those from Atheist families are prone to becoming religious?

I absolutely agree with this. As much as we would like to think we came to our choices ourselves, our parents and family have a massive influence on us, namely: we want to rebel against our upbringing.

I fit in to this theory, as a theist daughter of militant atheist parents.

Pushtrak

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I absolutely agree with this. As much as we would like to think we came to our choices ourselves, our parents and family have a massive influence on us, namely: we want to rebel against our upbringing.

I fit in to this theory, as a theist daughter of militant atheist parents.

At least rebellion the other way has a justification in wanting evidence. The other way is "Pfft, who needs evidence?"

But, I can't pretend the pure rebellious choice in either scenario is worthy of respect. They don't have any thought in them. Only worthy as a precursor to putting actual thought into the matter. If one ever does.

Daftendirekt

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I absolutely agree with this. As much as we would like to think we came to our choices ourselves, our parents and family have a massive influence on us, namely: we want to rebel against our upbringing.

I fit in to this theory, as a theist daughter of militant atheist parents.

I think this theory is far too simplistic. Plenty of people stay in the religion of their parents, and plenty of people who've had a non-religious upbringing become religious. There's probably a lot more too it than that.

stevejazzx

alex73 wrote: »

So should we read in the pattern that kids from Religious families are prone to becoming atheists and those from Atheist families are prone to becoming religious?

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I absolutely agree with this. As much as we would like to think we came to our choices ourselves, our parents and family have a massive influence on us, namely: we want to rebel against our upbringing.

I fit in to this theory, as a theist daughter of militant atheist parents.

You fit into what?
Alex was asking Magoo a question!
Read between the lines and you'll see that Magoo gave a matter of fact answer which attempted to turn the OP question on its head by reversing the set up. Alex then came back with the question "should we see the pattern as such...? this was Alexs' way of saying 'what's your point' and then you came along and said 'that's me that is'?
Baffling.

MrPudding

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I fit in to this theory, as a theist daughter of militant atheist parents.

Militant atheists? Oooh, sounds scary. Did they bomb churches and such?

Why would an educated atheist from a atheist family suddenly decide to abandon critical thinking and rational thought and become religious? Brain tumour, neurochemical imbalance or possibly a physical or mental trauma perhaps?

MrP

Herbal Deity

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I absolutely agree with this. As much as we would like to think we came to our choices ourselves, our parents and family have a massive influence on us, namely: we want to rebel against our upbringing.

I fit in to this theory, as a theist daughter of militant atheist parents.

So your beliefs stem from simple, petty rebelliousness?

And I thought most believers felt their beliefs were deep, meaningful and extremely important to them...



Plenty of people from religious backgrounds convert to atheism, and many from atheist backgrounds convert to being religious. People have different life experiences which lead them to different things.

I would imagine that some kind of tragedy or emotional trauma in someone's life would be a very common reason for converting to a religion (or rejuvenating passive/lapsed beliefs), for example.

Dades

Herbal Deity wrote: »

So your beliefs stem from simple, petty rebelliousness?

FYI, midlandsmissus has given the background on her "conversion" before and petty rebelliousness wasn't an apparent reason, tempting as a soundbyte it might be.

midlandsmissus

stevejazzx wrote: »

You fit into what?
Alex was asking Magoo a question!
Read between the lines and you'll see that Magoo gave a matter of fact answer which attempted to turn the OP question on its head by reversing the set up. Alex then came back with the question "should we see the pattern as such...? this was Alexs' way of saying 'what's your point' and then you came along and said 'that's me that is'?
Baffling.

Hi Steve, to clarify, it is a theory of mine. I have posted about it before on this forum, so I was interested to see it coming up in this thread.

I definitely think there is a correlation: not that your upbringing totally forms your adult beliefs, but that if you have pushy, overbearing parents one way or the other: religious or atheist, it does push you to be independant and think for yourself, i.e annoyance at your parents views being pushed onto you.

midlandsmissus

Pushtrak wrote: »

At least rebellion the other way has a justification in wanting evidence. The other way is "Pfft, who needs evidence?"

But, I can't pretend the pure rebellious choice in either scenario is worthy of respect. They don't have any thought in them. Only worthy as a precursor to putting actual thought into the matter. If one ever does.

I definitely didn't have a moment where I thought 'Pfft who needs evidence' .

Evidence is subjective - what is enough evidence to one person? What is enough evidence to another?

I did alot of research into the topic and came to my beliefs this way.

Also, see my post above, I don't think anyone does it as a pure, rebellious choice, just that your upbringing has an influence.

midlandsmissus

MrPudding wrote: »

Militant atheists? Oooh, sounds scary. Did they bomb churches and such?

Why would an educated atheist from a atheist family suddenly decide to abandon critical thinking and rational thought and become religious? Brain tumour, neurochemical imbalance or possibly a physical or mental trauma perhaps?

MrP

I know you sceptics like your links:

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

It is a recognised term.

See I would describe 'educated atheist' as somebody who was allowed to analyse and form their own beliefs. I had it forced on me as a child. There was no 'think for yourself and see what you arrive at', there was :'There is no God, Catholics are ridiculously stupid, how could anyone be that stupid,' and arguments with any Catholic they met. That's what I'd call militant atheism.

So I would say I actually arrived at critical thinking when I got older. It's not like you just decide 'There is a God, hallejuia!'. As I'm sure you'll understand, nobody would switch from atheist to theist overnight. They are complete polar opposite mindsets. But I have arrived at theist beliefs, and I'm very happy with it.

midlandsmissus

Herbal Deity wrote: »

So your beliefs stem from simple, petty rebelliousness?

And I thought most believers felt their beliefs were deep, meaningful and extremely important to them...



Plenty of people from religious backgrounds convert to atheism, and many from atheist backgrounds convert to being religious. People have different life experiences which lead them to different things.

I would imagine that some kind of tragedy or emotional trauma in someone's life would be a very common reason for converting to a religion (or rejuvenating passive/lapsed beliefs), for example.

Herbal Deity do I not recognise your name? I have been posting on this board a long time. I have said before that I researched the topic over many years, before I arrived at my beliefs.

Petty rebelliousness - I'll say it again, No. I take this very seriously and have done alot of research. What I am saying, is that my upbringing definitely had an inflluence on me, as I'm sure it did on everyone else.

robindch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I definitely didn't have a moment where I thought 'Pfft who needs evidence'

The author of the Book of Hebrews seems to have thought that such a moment is necessary:

Hebrews 11:1 wrote:

Now "faith" is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

Which indicates, to this author at least (and it almost certainly wasn't Paul), that religious belief requires support from evidence that, in any meaningful sense, does not exist. And that the core of the religious belief concerned is what one wishes to be true.

In both these contexts, religious belief is indistinguishable from wishful thinking.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I have arrived at theist beliefs, and I'm very happy with it.

See previous sentence

AudreyHepburn

alex73 wrote: »

I would have thought that a man as educated as André and from a Family who educated him as a atheist would not have converted to Catholicism.

What is the reason why he converted? (or as I would say found God)

Do we take from this thatyou think those with religious beliefs are uneducated?

I maybe taking it up wrong but this seems to be the implication?

What your family believe is only part of it. My Dad's an athiest for instance and I'm a Catholic.

stevejazzx

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hi Steve, to clarify, it is a theory of mine. I have posted about it before on this forum, so I was interested to see it coming up in this thread.

I definitely think there is a correlation: not that your upbringing totally forms your adult beliefs, but that if you have pushy, overbearing parents one way or the other: religious or atheist, it does push you to be independant and think for yourself, i.e annoyance at your parents views being pushed onto you.

Ok, fair enough
However I don't see how the pushiness of a prents belief could influence ones ultimate belief. For exmaple saying 'I was almost going to be atheist becasue I couldn't find any evidence to support a sky god but then i remembered that my dad was an atheist and despite all my research it just wasn't worth it to have him say 'I told you so' so now I am a happily content as deist?
Surely it matters not one whit what your parents believe when you come to decide?

Saying that, my dad does believe in healthy lashings of xenophobia supported by hearsay and paranoia and I do find myself just automatically going the other way but this is becasue I don't respect his opinion to begin with. maybe that's the rub here?

Ickle Magoo

Baring in mind by far the majority of people hold the religion and often the views their parents passed on - especially in countries where religious & general pushiness is far greater than here, I don't think the hypothesis holds water.

midlandsmissus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Baring in mind by far the majority of people hold the religion and often the views their parents passed on - especially in countries where religious & general pushiness is far greater than here, I don't think the hypothesis holds water.

But also, those countries would have a higher penalty for deviating from your parent's religion, e.g. being denounced, being a social outcast, and physical threat, look at media reports of women who have been murdered simply for marrying some-one of the wrong religion.

So, I don't think they could necessarily be taken into the hypothesis.

Ickle Magoo

I would say the numbers of people who reject their parents religion or lack there of are very much in the minority in any country. I'm not sure how a general hypothesis gets to start excluding countries and situations that would easily lead to it being called bunk, either.

midlandsmissus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would say the numbers of people who reject their parents religion or lack there of are very much in the minority in any country. I'm not sure how a general hypothesis gets to start excluding countries and situations that would easily lead to it being called bunk, either.

Not excluding countries, just taking in the societal differences.

Anyway I don't think an objective study could be done in current society. The mass young population of Ireland are atheist/raised catholic as we all know, the Catholic religion had such a stronghold on the country/
The next generation should have alot of children raised atheist/no influence, so it will be a generational thing. Will be interesting to see how that generation turns out though, to see if it fits into my theory!

bnt

What about the original question: "why did André Frossard believe in God"?

Well. you'd need to ask him that - why should we put words in his mouth? I read this, which points to a book he wrote, called "God Exists. I Have Met Him", which kinda answers the question. He thought he met God, and I presume God told him to convert to Catholicism. One obituary describes it as follows:

Frossard's delight was to surprise. And he was well-placed to do this. His grandmother was Jewish, his mother a Lutheran Protestant, his father, Ludovic-Oscar Frossard, an official atheist who was first secretary of the Communist Party and later a socialist minister.
The young Frossard discovered religion when he entered a chapel to look for a friend in July 1935. This experience has often been compared to Claudel's vision, much earlier, in Notre Dame. But Claudel turned his work and himself into a cathedral. Frossard never forgot that his chapel, now invisible, was in the Rue d'Ulm, a street dominated by the Ecole Normale Superieure.
His conversion was always individual, allowing him to adopt different attitudes, even to see matters as a joke. "I was as surprised," he wrote, "to find myself a Catholic when I left the chapel as I would have been to find myself a giraffe when I left the zoo." There is an apostle who has been named "doubting"; Frossard would have been called "comic".

My personal interpretation is that it was at least partly an act of rebellion, to become a Catholic despite his upbringing. Beyond that, we're back to the old problem of "personal experience": he felt something, but that doesn't mean that what he felt was real.

alex73

bnt wrote: »

My personal interpretation is that it was at least partly an act of rebellion, to become a Catholic despite his upbringing. Beyond that, we're back to the old problem of "personal experience": he felt something, but that doesn't mean that what he felt was real.

Maybe it was a real experience. There are also other Atheists who have converted and not out of rebellion.

Herbal Deity

Maybe it was, but as atheists, we would lack belief in supernatural, so without experiencing it ourselves, we would have to say it was a delusion, or else be inconsistent in our position.

Ickle Magoo

alex73 wrote: »

Maybe it was a real experience. There are also other Atheists who have converted and not out of rebellion.

Perhaps it was, unfortunately until such a time as "real religious experience" can be differentiated from other more earthy & infinitely more likely explanations then the jury will remain out and - certainly in my case - sceptical.

Pushtrak

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Do we take from this thatyou think those with religious beliefs are uneducated?

I have no issue with putting my stamp on that one. Not as an absolute statement, but it is a very good general rule to live by. You could make that statement about everyone, really. It goes with not knowing everything.

In terms of religious lack of education, some things are worth seeking confirmation. Get talking about the scientific method, what is a theory, a hypothesis, and see what the religious understanding of these words are. As I have already said, it isn't an absolute statement, so you could very well be talking to someone who knows their stuff quite well in many respects. But obviously something is lacking or they wouldn't have just given in to faith.

Faith is the very point you see light and stop looking for the lamp.

recedite

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I know you sceptics like your links:

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

It is a recognised term.

See I would describe 'educated atheist' as somebody who was allowed to analyse and form their own beliefs. I had it forced on me as a child. There was no 'think for yourself and see what you arrive at', there was :'There is no God, Catholics are ridiculously stupid, how could anyone be that stupid,' and arguments with any Catholic they met. That's what I'd call militant atheism.

Its an inaccurate and pejorative term.
From your own link; "The linguist Larry Trask suggests that the word militant is used all too freely in the feebler sense of 'holding or expressing views which are unpopular or which I don't like'." He notes that Richard Dawkins is "accused by tabloid newspapers and other commentators of being a 'militant atheist'", although, according to Trask, the adjective is never used of Christian activity. Trask concludes, "if you find yourself writing this word, stop and think whether it has any clear meaning, or whether you are just using it as a swearword." "
Lots of offensive labels are "recognised terms" (and there are plenty in the race/religion area), but that does not mean you should use them.

I would suggest fundamentalist instead of "militant".

AudreyHepburn

Pushtrak wrote: »

I have no issue with putting my stamp on that one. Not as an absolute statement, but it is a very good general rule to live by. You could make that statement about everyone, really. It goes with not knowing everything.

In terms of religious lack of education, some things are worth seeking confirmation. Get talking about the scientific method, what is a theory, a hypothesis, and see what the religious understanding of these words are. As I have already said, it isn't an absolute statement, so you could very well be talking to someone who knows their stuff quite well in many respects. But obviously something is lacking or they wouldn't have just given in to faith.

Faith is the very point you see light and stop looking for the lamp.

I'm Catholic but I also hold a Master Degree in Archaeology so I tend to disagree that something is lacking in me.

I'm perfectly well rounded as person, capable of thinking for myself, analysing, being critical etc. I understand theory, hypothesis, scientific method perfectly well havind studied such at school and read a lot on the topic personally.

Still think I'm uneducated?

Please don't generalise like that, it really adds nothing to the argument except to rile people. Not everyone who believes in God/Allah/Yaweh or whoever is lacking something, that's a rather insulting statement to make.

I didn't just give in to faith, I have considered not believing, have tried to do it but it just doesn't work for me so I choose to believe in God.

Pushtrak

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm Catholic but I also hold a Master Degree in Archaeology so I tend to disagree that something is lacking in me.

Ok, so you aren't as bad as the young earth creationist form of belief. Right, so taking evolution as true, then you don't go with the Adam and Eve myth. So, what exactly was this whole fall nonsense? This, Noah's Ark and so on were taken as literal until it was proven incorrect.

It is perfectly understandable that the people of 2000 years ago could write what they thought was literal fact and for it to be believed for so long. Science already gives us the answers in the form of the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution.

So, either you lack knowledge on these subjects, or you are sitting on some baffling knowledge that has never been expressed to me by any religious person. Which do you think I'm betting on? I'm curious what there is above and beyond faith for which you find so compelling that hasn't already been refuted.

AudreyHepburn

Pushtrak wrote: »

Ok, so you aren't as bad as the young earth creationist form of belief.

Praise indeed :rolleyes:

It is perfectly understandable that the people of 2000 years ago could write what they thought was literal fact and for it to be believed for so long. Science already gives us the answers in the form of the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution.

So, either you lack knowledge on these subjects, or you are sitting on some baffling knowledge that has never been expressed to me by any religious person. Which do you think I'm betting on?

Or maybe I'm just an intelligent, free thinking woman who won't take everything the church says at face value and isn't just some mindless drone who has been programmed to believe everything as the church dictates it.

For example Being and archaeologist I've seen irrefutable evidence for evolution etc cranial comparison in human and early hominid skulls. Also things like the comparisons between the embryos of different animals suggesting a common ancestor from which we all evolved etc so i know it is right.

I'm curious what there is above and beyond faith for which you find so compelling that hasn't already been refuted.

It's really just a matter of faith for me. I have thought about not believing, have tried to do it because sometimes I feel almost guilty for being religious, as though I'm participating something dark and evil.

But I just couldn't make myself not have faith. I really can't explain it any better than that.

Pushtrak

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Praise indeed :rolleyes:

It's about the best I can do.

Or maybe I'm just an intelligent, free thinking woman who won't take everything the church says at face value and isn't just some mindless drone who has been programmed to believe everything as the church dictates it.

When I see things like this, I imagine a botanist who just stops before finishing the work.

It's really just a matter of faith for me.

Ah, we're back to that old spiel.

But I just couldn't make myself not have faith. I really can't explain it any better than that.

Seeing as we've thrown out the good ol' faith card, let's bring out the trumpet that is hell. What's your stance on it? Those who reject Jesus all go to hell, presumably. So, do you go the seperation from god route, or the eternal gnashing of teeth, hell fire, and so forth?

AudreyHepburn

Pushtrak wrote: »

Seeing as we've thrown out the good ol' faith card, let's bring out the trumpet that is hell. What's your stance on it? Those who reject Jesus all go to hell, presumably. So, do you go the seperation from god route, or the eternal gnashing of teeth, hell fire, and so forth?

I don't believe in Hell. I believe everyone goes to the same place when we die, regardless of faith but that we all just have different interpretations of what it is.

For me it's heaven.

No-one's going to burn forever because of what they believe, at least I don'[t believe so.

stevejazzx

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm Catholic...... I'm perfectly well rounded as person, capable of thinking for myself.... I didn't just give in to faith, I have considered not believing, have tried to do it but it just doesn't work for me so I choose to believe in God.

AH wrote:

Or maybe I'm just an intelligent, free thinking woman

AH wrote:

who won't take everything the church says at face value and isn't just some mindless drone who has been programmed to believe everything as the church dictates it.

AH wrote:

It's really just a matter of faith for me. I have thought about not believing, have tried to do it because sometimes I feel almost guilty for being religious, as though I'm participating something dark and evil.

'nuff said..?

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No-one's going to burn forever because of what they believe, at least I don'[t believe so.

Out of interest -- why do you call yourself a catholic if you don't believe very many of the things that the Vatican says you must believe?

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest -- why do you call yourself a catholic if you don't believe very many of the things that the Vatican says you must believe?

Or put simply, why do you call yourself a catholic when you clearly aren't!

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest -- why do you call yourself a catholic if you don't believe very many of the things that the Vatican says you must believe?

I wish people would stop telling me what I do and don't believe when they don't even know me. I know what I am and what I believe.

I believe in God, Jesus and the Virigin Mary. I believe she was Jesus Mother although I don't think she was actually a Virgin. I do think there must have been something special about her though.

I believe Jesus did preform miracles and preach all the things he's said to have. I believe he was crucified for us, though I'm not sure he actually ressurected in the way the bible said. I like to think of it as something the disciples told people to give them confidence in their belief in Jesus, and God and to show them he was inface Divine.

As for the Eucharist I don't believe that bread and wine literally turn into flesh and blood. I believe that it's a metaphor and a reminder of Jesus' sacrifice for us.

The stories of the old testment I believe were the ancient hebrews way of understanding the world around them and maybe there is in a element of truth somewhere in them.

I'm not one whot takes everything on face value but I am Catholic enough for me.

stevejazzx

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I wish people would stop telling me what I do and don't believe when they don't even know me. I know what I am and what I believe.

I believe in God, Jesus and the Virigin Mary. I believe she was Jesus Mother although I don't think she was actually a Virgin. I do think there must have been something special about her though.

I believe Jesus did preform miracles and preach all the things he's said to have. I believe he was crucified for us, though I'm not sure he actually ressurected in the way the bible said. I like to think of it as something the disciples told people to give them confidence in their belief in Jesus, and God and to show them he was inface Divine.

As for the Eucharist I don't believe that bread and wine literally turn into flesh and blood. I believe that it's a metaphor and a reminder of Jesus' sacrifice for us.

The stories of the old testment I believe were the ancient hebrews way of understanding the world around them and maybe there is in a element of truth somewhere in them.

I'm not one whot takes everything on face value but I am Catholic enough for me.

You do believe that Jesus performed miracles but don't believe in the ressurection, virgin birth etc? Both sets of beliefs based on same books? How can you make the distinction?

AudreyHepburn

stevejazzx wrote: »

You do believe that Jesus performed miracles but don't believe in the ressurection, virgin birth etc? Both sets of beliefs based on same books? How can you make the distinction?

With a bit of critical thinking and common sense.

For instance I see no reason why he couldn't have been a great healer in his lifetime but I think saying his Mother got pregnant with him without having sex is stretching it a bit. It's not physically possible, or it wasn't in those days.

o1s1n

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not one whot takes everything on face value but I am Catholic enough for me.

I don't get this. You could pretty much believe the above and consider yourself a Christian, a follower of Christ.

Why do you call yourself a Catholic though when you clearly don't believe catholic teachings?

c_man

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I believe Jesus did preform miracles and preach all the things he's said to have. I believe he was crucified for us, though I'm not sure he actually ressurected in the way the bible said. I like to think of it as something the disciples told people to give them confidence in their belief in Jesus, and God and to show them he was inface Divine.

Whatever about identifying yourself a Catholic, I'm not sure you could call yourself a Christian while not believing in the resurrection!

AudreyHepburn

c_man wrote: »

Whatever about identifying yourself a Catholic, I'm not sure you could call yourself a Christian while not believing in the resurrection!

Christianity is simply a belief in Christ. I believe in him therefore I'm christian.

AudreyHepburn

o1s1n wrote: »

I don't get this. You could pretty much believe the above and consider yourself a Christian, a follower of Christ.

Why do you call yourself a Catholic though when you clearly don't believe catholic teachings?

Because I believe in some of them completely and the others I see as either metaphorical or that there is some element of truth to them.

o1s1n

But the ones you believe completely are general Christian beliefs whereas the ones you see as mataphoric are the Catholic ones and pretty important in being defined as a Catholic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to catch you out/wind you up, I just think it's a bit redundant calling yourself a Catholic when 'Christian' seems to suit better.

AudreyHepburn

Ok I've had enough of trying to defend myself when people obviously aren't going to listen.

No-one can claim to know what I do or don't believe because you don't know me. I'm Catholic, albiet an a-la-Carte one in the sense that I can't take everything as absolute gospel. I do however believe there is truth in everything and it's a matter of finding that truth for yourself.

Some people here obviously can't fathom that some with faith is also capable of critical thinking and intelligence.

o1s1n

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok I've had enough of trying to defend myself when people obviously aren't going to listen..

Defending yourself? That's a little dramatic. Nobody is attacking you. We're discussing. On a discussion forum.

Personally I was just interested in why you considered yourself a Catholic when you don't seem to believe their teachings.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No-one can claim to know what I do or don't believe because you don't know me. I'm Catholic, albiet an a-la-Carte one in the sense that I can't take everything as absolute gospel. I do however believe there is truth in everything and it's a matter of finding that truth for yourself. .

A bunch of people get together who believe the same thing. They decide to form a group and give it a name. You don't believe the same thing as that bunch of people. Therefore why would you consider yourself as part of their group?

Catholicism follows a certain set of beliefs. If you don't believe them, you are not a Catholic.

If you believe in christ but don't fit any specific religious category, you are a Christian. Is there something wrong with 'just' being a Christian? I don't get it?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Some people here obviously can't fathom that some with faith is also capable of critical thinking and intelligence.

My parents are religious and both capable of critical thinking and intelligence. You're jumping to conclusions. (Well you are if that above comment was aimed at me in any way)

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not one whot takes everything on face value but I am Catholic enough for me.

I don't think that anybody is doubting that you sincerely believe that you hold catholic beliefs, and that you sincerely believe that you are a catholic.

What we're suggesting though is quite different -- that the beliefs that you hold are not what the Vatican requires of catholics. And in this world, it's the Vatican that lays down the rules with respect to who is and isn't a catholic.

Do you see the difference?

midlandsmissus

I wholeheartedly applaud you AudreyHepburn!

I see you taking much the same path as me:

From:

- believing in God but all I really know in this country is catholicism, and I am still affected by societal boundaries, so call myself a Catholic,
-start to think more, realise I don't agree with the majority of Catholic teachings but definitely believe in Jesus so call myself a Christian
- Do more research, Realise I hate labels altogether and want to have my own individual beliefs, so now I say I believe in God, but am not part of any religion.

Your posts show that you are really thinking about this and that is really important . And well done at not getting offended by the A&A's. That shows strength, they're a tough crowd Best of luck on your travels