What do Irish Catholics actually believe in?

Calibos

He cursed a Date Tree once as well.

Pushtrak

tony_soprano wrote: »

i got called crazy for refering to myself as a cultural catholic ( despite being athiest ) on another forum

It's a pretty meaningless term.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Basically, if you read Jesus' words, he does not advocate hatred. Ever. Even if he states that some people are misguided, he never once says we should shun or hate anyone.

*Sigh* Go back, read your bible.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."(Luke 14:26)

"...he that HATETH his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal."(John 12:25)

Luke 12:49-53 I have come to set fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until the ordeal is over! Do you suppose I came to establish peace on earth? No indeed, I have come to bring division. For from now on, five members of a family will be divided, three against two and two against three; father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother…

Matthew 10:21-22, 34-39 Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child; children will turn against their parents and send them to their death. All will hate you for your allegiance to me; but the man who holds out to the end will be saved….You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than for me; no man is worthy of me who cares for son or daughter; no man is worthy of me who does not take up his cross and waLuke in my footsteps. By gaining his life a man will lose it; by losing his life for my sake, he will gain it.

Luke 22:35-38 He said to them, “When I sent you out barefoot without purse or pack, were you ever short of anything?” “No,” they answered. “It is different now,” he said; “whoever has a purse had better take it with him, and his pack too; and if he has no sword, let him sell his cloak to buy one. For Scripture says, ‘And he was counted among the outlaws,’”…“Look, Lord,” they said, “we have two swords here.” “Enough, enough!” he replied.

Compare that with his almost total lack of comment on benign sexual matters such as masturbation and homosexuality, then look at the church's apparent priorities in that regard, and you'll see just how warped their interpretation of the will of Jesus actually is.

Maybe they should go old school and tell people to get swords?

Duggys Housemate

lividduck wrote: »

cartell_best wrote: »

Sir or Miss?, you are being pedantic... Why? because? and you regard me as being whatever is going on inside your head that being...the ku klux klan? please, in fairness, is that your defense? no need! seriously!

Im not the one supporting the rape and abuse of kids, you are the one PROUDLY proclaiming your membership of that criminal conspiracy.

Did he say he supported child abuse anywhere?

Pushtrak

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Did he say he supported child abuse anywhere?

No, but he supports an institution in which child abuse is institutionalized. This isn't a few bad apples, it speaks to the head of the organisation and to many underlings.

Run_to_da_hills

Pushtrak wrote: »

No, but he supports an institution in which child abuse is institutionalized. This isn't a few bad apples, it speaks to the head of the organisation and to many underlings.

The head needs to be cut off this serpent.

Duggys Housemate

Pushtrak wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Did he say he supported child abuse anywhere?

No, but he supports an institution in which child abuse is institutionalized. This isn't a few bad apples, it speaks to the head of the organisation and to many underlings.

What about your support, then, for the slave camps in atheist North Korea?

mcmoustache

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

What about your support, then, for the slave camps in atheist North Korea?

If pushtrak is attending meetings organised by the north korean regime, worshipping Kim, giving the regime money, indoctrinating his children into the Kim ideology etc, then pushtrak would be a supporter of an evil regime.

The thing is, he isn't. At least, I'm pretty sure he isn't. But if he was, he'd be a douche. But he isn't.

Also, North Korea is far from atheist. Just because they don't worship your god, doesn't make them atheist. They worship their dear leaders who, like pharaohs, are demigods at least, if not full blown gods.

Halloran springs

Pushtrak wrote: »

It's a pretty meaningless term.

*Sigh* Go back, read your bible.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."(Luke 14:26)

"...he that HATETH his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal."(John 12:25)

Luke 12:49-53 I have come to set fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until the ordeal is over! Do you suppose I came to establish peace on earth? No indeed, I have come to bring division. For from now on, five members of a family will be divided, three against two and two against three; father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother…

Matthew 10:21-22, 34-39 Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child; children will turn against their parents and send them to their death. All will hate you for your allegiance to me; but the man who holds out to the end will be saved….You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than for me; no man is worthy of me who cares for son or daughter; no man is worthy of me who does not take up his cross and waLuke in my footsteps. By gaining his life a man will lose it; by losing his life for my sake, he will gain it.

Luke 22:35-38 He said to them, “When I sent you out barefoot without purse or pack, were you ever short of anything?” “No,” they answered. “It is different now,” he said; “whoever has a purse had better take it with him, and his pack too; and if he has no sword, let him sell his cloak to buy one. For Scripture says, ‘And he was counted among the outlaws,’”…“Look, Lord,” they said, “we have two swords here.” “Enough, enough!” he replied.

Maybe they should go old school and tell people to get swords?

Following with his keen eyes the trail to the river, and then the river back towards the forest, Aragorn saw a shadow on the distant green, a dark swift-moving blur. He cast himself upon the ground and listened again intently. But Legolas stood beside him, shading his bright elven-eyes with his long slender hand, and he saw not a shadow, nor a blur, but the small figures of horsemen, many horsemen, and the glint of morning on the tips of their spears was like the twinkle of minute stars beyond the edge of mortal sight. Far behind them a dark smoke rose in thin curling threads.

Lord of the Rings, Two Towers, "The Riders of Rohan"

Pushtrak

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

What about your support, then, for the slave camps in atheist North Korea?

For some reason, boards wasn't loading earlier. Anyway, I copied what I had written and will just paste it now...

Atheism isn't an institution. It isn't a group. It has no tenets. Atheists aren't bound together by anything. So, there is that.

There is also that in the case of North Korea, the leadership takes position of god. Self proclaimed deity status, and they are treated as such. So, there is that too.

Care to try again? Oh, you can't, because atheists aren't defined as a group, more like a herd of cats. Which has been said in so many places I can't imagine you hadn't heard the idea before.

Duggys Housemate

Pushtrak wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

What about your support, then, for the slave camps in atheist North Korea?

For some reason, boards wasn't loading earlier. Anyway, I copied what I had written and will just paste it now...

Atheism isn't an institution. It isn't a group. It has no tenets. Atheists aren't bound together by anything. So, there is that.

There is also that in the case of North Korea, the leadership takes position of god. Self proclaimed deity status, and they are treated as such. So, there is that too.

Care to try again? Oh, you can't, because atheists aren't defined as a group, more like a herd of cats. Which has been said in so many places I can't imagine you hadn't heard the idea before.

Let's spell this out simply. A man is a member of a swimming club, that club had child abusers, the head of the swimming club didn't report it. Is the man responsible, or a supporter of child abuse? This is the illogical nonsense I am dealing with.

Pushtrak

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Let's spell this out simply. A man is a member of a swimming club, that club had child abusers, the head of the swimming club didn't report it. Is the man responsible, or a supporter of child abuse? This is the illogical nonsense I am dealing with.

I certainly wouldn't give such a business my money. Would you?

catbear

But isn't atheism reliant on organised religions for it's own existence, that is if there was no religion, there'd be no atheists?

Compared to the religion they emerged from the early christians were like a herd of cats! It was later under Constantine that Christianity became a political entity.

Atheism, a future world religion?

jayteecork

People are afraid of dying.

Pushtrak

catbear wrote: »

But isn't atheism reliant on organised religions for it's own existence, that is if there was no religion, there'd be no atheists?

Compared to the religion they emerged from the early christians were like a herd of cats! It was later under Constantine that Christianity became a political entity.

Atheism, a future world religion?

Atheism would lose its meaning in such a case, indeed. But I don't think that is any more a big deal than us not talking about people about people who don't collect stamps as a thing under the label non stamp collector. While we do have the word omnivore, we don't in general conversation need to point this out, bt people who are vegetarian point this out. These are pretty obvious examples.

Duggys Housemate

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

What about your support, then, for the slave camps in atheist North Korea?

Posts like this make me feel intelligent.

Anyways, Irish catholics believe that jesus was white. Must change the picture in the kitchen next time I'm back home.

Duggys Housemate

mcmoustache wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

What about your support, then, for the slave camps in atheist North Korea?

If pushtrak is attending meetings organised by the north korean regime, worshipping Kim, giving the regime money, indoctrinating his children into the Kim ideology etc, then pushtrak would be a supporter of an evil regime.

The thing is, he isn't. At least, I'm pretty sure he isn't. But if he was, he'd be a douche. But he isn't.

Also, North Korea is far from atheist. Just because they don't worship your god, doesn't make them atheist. They worship their dear leaders who, like pharaohs, are demigods at least, if not full blown gods.

I am not a believer in God, but I love taking on the group think of new Atheism. North Korea is an officially Atheist state. The worship of dear leader is an atheist worship. You are blaming a subset of human activity - groupthink, hero worship etc. - for the entire activity.

In which case you can blame religion for anything. If the group think of the new Atheism accelerates into violence against religions, based on the writings of a militant atheist, you can just say they were religious because they took the atheist writings as their bible. this will make all atheisms "religious".

In fact the idea itself was prpogated by the clear leaders of the modern movement, Hitchens and dawkins. We might as call the logical fallacy that extreme atheism == religious as a belief religiously accepted by modern atheisms.

It's also a way to dismiss criticism of Englightenment thinking - and communism
Is a product of the Enlightenment - our of hand. The bad stuff produced by the Englitenment can be whitewashed out of history like a picture of Trotsky because all all it's leaders were declared atheists it was really religious.

That does not wash.

I

Duggys Housemate

Pushtrak wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Let's spell this out simply. A man is a member of a swimming club, that club had child abusers, the head of the swimming club didn't report it. Is the man responsible, or a supporter of child abuse? This is the illogical nonsense I am dealing with.

I certainly wouldn't give such a business my money. Would you?

The response you are looking for is this - the member of the club is not a facilitator of child abuse because he was in the club.

Which wins me the argument.

catbear

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The response you are looking for is this - the member of the club is not a facilitator of child abuse because he was in the club.

Which wins me the argument.

If the man did know about it, reported it to management in anticipation of criminal proceedings, then to a point he's in the clear. However if the matter isn't dealt with and the abuser continues, then it's up to that member to report the abuse and the failure of management to the state authority. If the member doesn't report managements failings then they are facilitators to the crime.

Akrasia

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The substance changes not the accidents. Not that most Catholics know that either.

Just as well too. Catholics have a hard enough time mentally blocking out the knowledge that "it's all non
sense isn't it " without having to rationalize clearly made up bullsh1t such as appears in the quoted post.

FlexBrowne

Brilliantly put!

cock robin

lazygal wrote: »

Not a bashing thread, more curiosity.
Any Irish 'Catholic' I know doesn't really follow or believe in a lot of the teachings. I know gay men who go to mass every week. I know friends of mine who use contraception and have sex before marriage. One woman even tried to argue that the host at communion is 'symbolic', and took grave offence when I pointed out if she believed that, she was Protestant. So why call yourself a Catholic if you disagree with or just don't follow most of the core teachings?

I believe that a (virgin) woman on a donkey travelling with her husband (a carpenter) had sex with a ghost. What the hubby and the donkey were doing while this all takes place is a mystery. Anyway she gave birth to a child who when he died also became a ghost. Now by believing this story and others (a dude called Adam and a burd called Eve) being another well known one and by being really nice to everyone and never having a

wank

. When I die I too will become a ghost and meet all the other folk who were good (and never had a

wank

) Mean while the administrators of this faith (priests,bishops and cardinals etc.) can indeed have quite a few

wanks

and sex with kids and acumulate more wealth (vatican bank)than alot of countries have at their disposal. I believe it as should all of us it does after all make perfect sense.

stanley 2

That Jeaus rose from the dead its the linch pin if you cant acecpt this your out of the club

OldNotWIse

catbear wrote: »

If the man did know about it, reported it to management in anticipation of criminal proceedings, then to a point he's in the clear. However if the matter isn't dealt with and the abuser continues, then it's up to that member to report the abuse and the failure of management to the state authority. If the member doesn't report managements failings then they are facilitators to the crime.

Are you saying that everyone who attends mass "knows about and is concealing" child abuse? Is the man who is a "member" of the swimming pool being compared to the cardinal or people who attend the church?

catbear

stanley 2 wrote: »

That Jeaus rose from the dead its the linch pin if you cant acecpt this your out of the club

Certainly out of the Roman Church. But what about the other gospels that Rome outlawed? The gospel of Thomas undermined christianity as a state religion, too much referencing to God being in everyone, something that's only briefly mention in Luke.
It's thought the whole doubting Thomas passage in John was contrived to dispel the message of the Gospel of Thomas that Jesus was mortal and there wasn't a resurrection or any miracles.
It's possible to get something from the story of Jesus without ever having to join any of the fan clubs.

lmaopml

OP, I think the internet is not a great place to actually learn what Catholics believe, but I can recommend a good book if you're interested in finding out. It's good for both practicing and non practicing Catholics - or anybody really who is interested in actually knowing.

http://www.amazon.com/Catholics-Really-Believe-Setting-Record-Straight/dp/0898705533

Ghost Buster

catbear wrote: »

But isn't atheism reliant on organised religions for it's own existence, that is if there was no religion, there'd be no atheists?

Compared to the religion they emerged from the early christians were like a herd of cats! It was later under Constantine that Christianity became a political entity.

Atheism, a future world religion?

No No No No No NO NO nONo No No No No NO NO nONo No No No No NO NO nONo No No No No NO NO nO
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods who could very well exist or not irrespective of religion.
Atheism is not the lack of belief in religions. They definitely exist:(

I Heart Internet

So you believe gods don't exist. I get it.........;):D

suicide_circus

See the headline on the RTe website there?
" Smyth abuse victim calls for probe into Sean Brady"
See how he likes it eh?

catbear

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods who could very well exist or not irrespective of religion.
Atheism is not the lack of belief in religions. They definitely exist:(

I got the first part but then I was confused again by the second bit. Atheists believe that religions exist but have no feelings about the matter after that, is that it?

FergusODowd

catbear wrote: »

But isn't atheism reliant on organised religions for it's own existence, that is if there was no religion, there'd be no atheists?

Compared to the religion they emerged from the early christians were like a herd of cats! It was later under Constantine that Christianity became a political entity.

Atheism, a future world religion?

Atheism a religion ? No. But there is good money in it these days.

It has headed in the organised anti-religion direction.

That’s why many non religious, non believers today just prefer to say "I'm not religious, I don't believe in any of that" rather than identify themselves with organised atheists. Witness the €20 tickets to see Dawkins preach, buy his books, join up atheist Ireland etc. etc. There's good money in organised atheism, and such organisation feels like poison to anyone who does not believe in organised beliefs / non beliefs or any other such word play.

Canis Lupus

FergusODowd wrote: »

Atheism a religion ? No. But there is good money in it these days.

It has headed in the organised anti-religion direction.

That’s why many non religious, non believers today just prefer to say "I'm not religious, I don't believe in any of that" rather than identify themselves with organised atheists. Witness the €20 tickets to see Dawkins preach, buy his books, join up atheist Ireland etc. etc. There's good money in organised atheism, and such organisation feels like poison to anyone who does not believe in organised beliefs / non beliefs or any other such word play.

You're getting it slightly wrong there. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god/gods. That's it. Anti religion or anti-theism is separate. You also have secularism which will contain both believers and non believers.

As for the money side people will pay money to listen to someone speak on a broad range of topics and to read books of all flavours. I don't really see your point here. Dawkins and people like him aren't offering everlasting life or will pretend to cure someone from cancer when they pay to attend a speech. He's entertainment of an intellectual sort. To say he preaches is utter bollox.

As for Atheism Ireland they have a mandate, if you support it then I don't see how it's unreasonable to supply money. It's not like they're taking the money and building lavish buildings decorated with priceless works of art like some religious organisations have done....

Latchy

American lawyer Helen McGonigle who's sister was also abused by Brendan Smyth is giving her views on Brady and the catholic church now on RTE radio .

Pushtrak

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are you saying that everyone who attends mass "knows about and is concealing" child abuse?

Not everyone, no. But people who have a TV on which they ever tune in to the news, or read newspapers, or get updated on events online should have some knowledge about the issue. I'll leave it to your imagination how many people that might be.

lmaopml wrote: »

OP, I think the internet is not a great place to actually learn what Catholics believe, but I can recommend a good book if you're interested in finding out. It's good for both practicing and non practicing Catholics - or anybody really who is interested in actually knowing.

http://www.amazon.com/Catholics-Really-Believe-Setting-Record-Straight/dp/0898705533

That's great, but I'm sure after reading that the same problems will arise. People who don't believe in say, the resurrection, transubstantation, or whatever the book says "Be this or you are out of the club" will say they are Catholic anyway. Baffles me how people are so eager to be part in a club that perpetrates such evil. Anyway, it is not for me to understand, I guess.

catbear wrote: »

I got the first part but then I was confused again by the second bit. Atheists believe that religions exist but have no feelings about the matter after that, is that it?

There are religions. People believe in them. This is an obvious fact, right? It says nothing about the credibility of any of them, and a reasoned examination of any of them will demonstrate them as anything but credible.

FergusODowd

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You're getting it slightly wrong there. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god/gods. That's it . . . . . . . . .As for Atheism Ireland they have a mandate, if you support it then I don't see how it's unreasonable to supply money. It's not like they're taking the money and building lavish buildings decorated with priceless works of art like some religious organisations have done....

Hmmm, your self contradiction would be a clue, that in fact, your getting it slightly wrong there.

Like it or not, the term Atheist has evolved. I prefer the term non religious, non believer etc. myself. I don't want to be in any way associated with Atheist Ireland, Dawkins inc. etc. etc. etc. They don't speak for me.
I abhor organised "non beliefs"* as much as organised "beliefs"*.

* - Insert preferred wordplay term here

Sorry, but I won't be toe-ing the party line.

Canis Lupus

FergusODowd wrote: »

Hmmm, your self contradiction would be a clue, that in fact, your getting it slightly wrong there.

Like it or not, the term Atheist has evolved. I prefer the term non religious, non believer etc. myself. I don't want to be in any way associated with Atheist Ireland, Dawkins inc. etc. etc. etc. They don't speak for me.
I abhor organised "non beliefs"* as much as organised "beliefs"*.

* - Insert preferred wordplay term here

Sorry, but I won't be toe-ing the party line.

erm... ok...

Seachmall

FergusODowd wrote: »

Like it or not, the term Atheist has evolved.

Like it or not 95+% of atheists use the term to mean, and only mean, "non-theist".

Therefore atheist means non-theist.

Nothing more, nothing less.

housetypeb

[QUOTE=FergusODowd;78500316

Sorry, but I won't be toe-ing the party line.[/QUOTE]

Great-can I eat his portion of baby seeing as he's not a paid up member-I'm still hungry.

FergusODowd

Seachmall wrote: »

Like it or not 95+% of atheists use the term to mean, and only mean, "non-theist".

Therefore atheist means non-theist.

Nothing more, nothing less.

So whats Atheist Ireland about then ?

Pushtrak

FergusODowd wrote: »

So whats Atheist Ireland about then ?

An interest group campaigning for secular values.

FergusODowd

Pushtrak wrote: »

An interest group campaigning for secular values.

Why is it not called secular Ireland then ?
Secularism and Atheism are not the same thing.

Canis Lupus

FergusODowd wrote: »

Why is it not called secular Ireland then ?
Secularism and Atheism are not the same thing.

You could just go look at their mission statement?

FergusODowd

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You could just go look at their mission statement?

I have, but its more fun to watch you play dodge the question . . .

Ghost Buster

catbear wrote: »

I got the first part but then I was confused again by the second bit. Atheists believe that religions exist but have no feelings about the matter after that, is that it?

Im not sure what you are asking in regard to atheist having 'no feelings about the existance of religions'. Seeing as atheists only have one thing in common namely a lack of belief in gods , then I really cannot speak for anyone but myself.
I have time for members of many religions but not their beliefs. I strongly dislike a few religions with catholicism holding a special place on my 'dislike' list for personal reasons. I like two religions/ belief systems though i dont hold with their supernatural aspects.

Canis Lupus

FergusODowd wrote: »

I have, but its more fun to watch you play dodge the question . . .

So you're being intentionally obtuse? Fair enough.

Seachmall

FergusODowd wrote: »

I have, but its more fun to watch you play dodge the question . . .

That implies the question needs dodging.

It doesn't, because it's a stupid question.

FergusODowd

Ghost Buster wrote: »

atheists only have one thing in common namely a lack of belief in gods , then I really cannot speak for anyone but myself.

Agreed, thats why I find the Athiest.ie brigade equally abhorrent.

saa

Oh...kay so anywho the few Catholics I know, well I think they take the bible with a pinch of salt and more so focus on the premise that there is something else and something better after they die as a way to structure meaning into their lives so its more of a coping mechanisn but they don't follow the no sex before marriage thing, and they use contraceptives thank god! other than that its hard to tell theyre very quiet about it and I wouldnt want to call anyone stupid for having a belief, beliefs are fine, being part of a community is fine and meeting up but telling others not to love each other etc. or having to follow a these rules and regulations that a man made institution has put forward is not something the Catholics I know follow very much.

Seachmall

FergusODowd wrote: »

Agreed, thats why I find the Athiest.ie brigade equally abhorrent.

Might I ask why?

FergusODowd

Seachmall wrote: »

That implies the question needs dodging.

It doesn't, because it's a stupid question.

A previous poster claimed that Atheist.ie are merely "an interest group campaigning for secular values."

1. If that's the case why are they not called Secular Ireland ?

2. Why do they propose to speak for Atheists ?

Simple questions.

Seachmall

FergusODowd wrote: »

A previous poster claimed that Atheist.ie are merely "an interest group campaigning for secular values."

1. If that's the case why are they not called Secular Ireland ?

2. Why do they propose to speak for Atheists ?

Simple questions.

They're not called Secular Ireland because they choose Atheist Ireland.

And as far as I'm aware they don't propose to speak for atheists.

It's just a name. Apple don't speak for apples either.