What do Irish Catholics actually believe in?

FergusODowd

Seachmall wrote: »

Might I ask why?

Because Atheism supposed to be simply a lack of belief in God(s), not an organised system of "beliefs"* / "non beliefs"*

* insert preferred wordplay term here.

allibastor

they believe that if you do something horribly wrong in your job Ahem*sean Brady* and then say, it wasnt me in a shaggy voice you should not be sacked on the spot for it.

FergusODowd

Seachmall wrote: »

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

So who are they speaking for then ?

Seachmall

FergusODowd wrote: »

Because Atheism supposed to be simply a lack of belief in God(s), not an organised system of "beliefs"* / "non beliefs"*

* insert preferred wordplay term here.

Well given that, I'd imagine, the vast majority of their members identify as atheist it seems a fitting name.

And them being called "Atheist.ie" does not in anyway suggest that atheism is organised.

FergusODowd wrote: »

So who are they speaking for then ?

Their members, I'd suspect.

Canis Lupus

FergusODowd wrote: »

Because Atheism supposed to be simply a lack of belief in God(s), not an organised system of "beliefs"* / "non beliefs"*

* insert preferred wordplay term here.

It's just one freaking advocacy group. They do not speak on behalf of all atheists in Ireland. They could call themselves the Dancing Daisy Plants, it doesn't matter.

FergusODowd

Seachmall wrote: »

Well given that, I'd imagine, the vast majority of their members identify as atheist it seems a fitting name.


Their members, I'd suspect.

So what's the difference between organised atheism and organised religion ?

rossie1977

that a child is given a name at christening

Seachmall

FergusODowd wrote: »

So what's the difference between organised atheism and organised religion ?

Give me a clear definition of organised religion that I can work off and I'll show you the differences.

Pushtrak

FergusODowd wrote: »

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

http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1634

It started out with the community atheist.ie and later, well, check out the thread, if you actually want information.

Ghost Buster

FergusODowd wrote: »

So what's the difference between organised atheism and organised religion ?

Can i ask what you hope to achieve with this course you have taken? Are you hoping to bring atheists down to your level? "Nah nah nah youre as silly as we are?"

FergusODowd

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Can i ask what you hope to achieve with this course you have taken? Are you hoping to bring atheists down to your level? "Nah nah nah youre as silly as we are?"

Whats my level ?

Nodin

FergusODowd wrote: »

So what's the difference between organised atheism and organised religion ?

An absence of a belief in the supernatural for starters.

smokingman

FergusODowd wrote: »

Whats my level ?

Believing in magic and absolving yourself of any personal responsibility by reciting a few words to yourself or maybe a priest?

...or just being silly?

Pushtrak

smokingman wrote: »

Believing in magic and absolving yourself of any personal responsibility by reciting a few words to yourself or maybe a priest?

...or just being silly?

He isn't a theist. He is an atheist who doesn't like the term atheist, and when asked about his religion will use non believer or some such. Has issues with Atheist Ireland, or any form of atheism that is vocal.

smokingman

Pushtrak wrote: »

He isn't a theist. He is an atheist who doesn't like the term atheist, and when asked about his religion will use non believer or some such. Has issues with Atheist Ireland, or any form of atheism that is vocal.

Ah, he did sound a bit like those "magic" trolls in his unwillingness to have a constructive debate...maybe I'm just too used to them popping up and blaming kids for their own rape by priests these days

FergusODowd

Nodin wrote: »

An absence of a belief in the supernatural for starters.

That’s the difference between theism and atheism

I was asking what’s the difference between organised atheism and organised theism?

Cossax

FergusODowd wrote: »

So what's the difference between organised atheism and organised religion ?

Atheism has no gods, no church, no priests, no congregations, no hierarchy, no sacred texts, no laws, no tradition, no ritual acts, no moral code, no special clothes or symbols, no cohesive spiritual vision, no belief in the supernatural, no founder, no concept of the afterlife, and above all, requires no faith.

Organised atheism, as you call it, is no more than a pressure group campaigning for equality under the law.

Nodin

FergusODowd wrote: »

That’s the difference between theism and atheism

Its also a difference between organised atheism and organised theism.

FergusODowd wrote: »

I was asking what’s the difference between organised atheism and organised theism?

Strikes me as a stupid question designed to let you soapbox/rant away regardless of the answer, tbh. In so much as "organised atheism" exists, theres no comparison at all.

catbear

For f**k sake Fergus, there is no difference between organised atheism and organised religion because they're both organised. Individuals can be both atheist and religious but separate from organised groups.

It's collectivism versus individualism.

FergusODowd

catbear wrote: »

For f**k sake Fergus, there is no difference between organised atheism and organised religion . . . .

Exactly, yet many are under the delusion, that other than a having beliefs/non beliefs there is a difference.

catbear

At this stage I developing a dose of apatheism.

Feathers

Pushtrak wrote: »

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.

Just to be clear, you're saying that every Catholic (who owns a TV/reads newspapers) is concealing child abuse? There's a big difference between reading reports about abuse that occured versus knowing someone is abusing kids & covering it up

philstar

which one is comedy, which one is real ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnao5SBunfI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCVmc885-ns

mongoman

lazygal wrote: »

What do Irish Catholics actually believe in?

Blind obedience and submission to their Sith lord Ratzinger perhaps?

FergusODowd

philstar wrote: »

which one is comedy, which one is real ??

"try telling that to those bog brained murphy's" - english wit at it's best

Paddy De Plasterer

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?

Catholics believe in a lot of things, moving statues doing Riverdance at times, tree stumps in Rathkeale, Knock, Lourdes apparitions where blessed virgin was supposed to appear to simple backw3ard people. Some other RCs do not go for that. I think Confession is a big fraud, where a man in a frock forgives your sins, and you can go out and do the same again.

FergusODowd

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Catholics believe in a lot of things, moving statues doing Riverdance at times, tree stumps in Rathkeale, Knock, Lourdes apparitions where blessed virgin was supposed to appear to simple backw3ard people. Some other RCs do not go for that. I think Confession is a big fraud, where a man in a frock forgives your sins, and you can go out and do the same again.

Fr Dougal is that you ?

LH Pathe

I believe in the ground beneath my feet. Pie in the sky I do not if you practicing catholics want to preserve something, consider your sanity and your dignity

marty1985

Comments in this thread like "every Catholic who attends mass is supporting a big pedophile ring and is therefore guilty by association" are not only wrong, but have disturbing implications. It's disingenuous for posters (and I don't have to name a particular poster here who can't control his hatred for Catholicism, and he is Christian) to say that people should abandon their faith because that won't happen. What this line of thinking does, is allow people to speak openly as a genuine bigot without fear or embarrassment. Bigots, almost by definition, never realise they are bigots. But when you make a sweeping generalisation that vilifies all members of a particular group, whether based on their ethnicity, race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or political alignment, you are a bigot and inciting hatred.

Run_to_da_hills

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Catholics believe in a lot of things, moving statues doing Riverdance at times, tree stumps in Rathkeale, Knock, Lourdes apparitions where blessed virgin was supposed to appear to simple backw3ard people. Some other RCs do not go for that. I think Confession is a big fraud, where a man in a frock forgives your sins, and you can go out and do the same again.

You are correct there, There is not a more demonic or unbiblical practice than the Catholic confessional.

The idea that a sinful man (an ordinary man dressed up in a religious costume) can forgive someone's sins is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

1st Timothy 2:5 couldn't be clearer .“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Jesus NEVER gave His Apostles the power to forgive people's sins.

Even the corrupt pharisees (equivalent of today's hierarchy) of Jesus' time knew that only God can forgive sin, “who can forgive sins but God only?” Mark 2:7.

catbear

marty1985 wrote: »

Comments in this thread like "every Catholic who attends mass is supporting a big pedophile ring and is therefore guilty by association" are not only wrong, but have disturbing implications. It's disingenuous for posters (and I don't have to name a particular poster here who can't control his hatred for Catholicism, and he is Christian) to say that people should abandon their faith because that won't happen. What this line of thinking does, is allow people to speak openly as a genuine bigot without fear or embarrassment. Bigots, almost by definition, never realise they are bigots. But when you make a sweeping generalisation that vilifies all members of a particular group, whether based on their ethnicity, race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or political alignment, you are a bigot and inciting hatred.

There is another side to that coin. I grew up in the RCC tradition, holy water, confession, paying for prayer intervention, was an alter boy etc. Now before Eamon Casey and sex abuse I had left that church. I didn't believe in it but did my family duty by attending weddings and christenings etc. I didn't care if people thought I believed in RCC doctrine just because I turned up for a family event, day to day RCC didn't affect me in my daily life.

However when Bertie made me financially accountable for abuse compensation, being passive was no longer acceptable. I believed it was unfair for non RCC taxpayers to do penance for a crime someone else committed. Since then I have been vocal in my criticism of the RCC culture of secrecy, some RCC think my secular desire for common justice is persecution of their religion. Whatever people want to believe is fine as long as they don't persecute my wallet or let their faith interfere in their duty to the common good. Simples really, do unto others as you would like them to do unto you.

If RCC followers and supporters believe that their priests and bishops are above accountability to Irish state law, then they are bigots.

mickydoomsux

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You are correct there, There is not a more demonic or unbiblical practice than the Catholic confessional.

The idea that a sinful man (an ordinary man dressed up in a religious costume) can forgive someone's sins is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

1st Timothy 2:5 couldn't be clearer .“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Jesus NEVER gave His Apostles the power to forgive people's sins.

Even the corrupt pharisees (equivalent of today's hierarchy) of Jesus' time knew that only God can forgive sin, “who can forgive sins but God only?” Mark 2:7.

All that nonsense aside, the real problem with it is that it is a means for the church to gather information on people to solidify their position of power.

bnt

When atheists talk about what Catholics believe, we make the reasonable assumption that they believe the words of the Nicene or Apostle's Creed, which has been mentioned in this thread a couple of times already. You go to mass, and early in the service you all recite it out loud, as if you were taking an oath. It is a flat statement of what you believe, or are supposed to believe. The Vatican and the whole Church hierarchy also assumes that all Catholics believe it. It is the foundation of their authority over you.

It's all there, in black-and-white - we don't need to make any of it up. So, if you call yourself a Catholic, yet you go "huh?" or get offended when someone pulls out a bit of the Creed and says "this is what you believe" ... it might be time for you to start questioning whether you're really a Catholic or not, and act accordingly. It is intellectually dishonest, or at least self-delusional, to recite a statement of beliefs that you don't believe. It is hypocritical to be counted as a member of the Catholic Church if you don't take the words of the Creed literally.

Feathers

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

1st Timothy 2:5 couldn't be clearer .“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Jesus NEVER gave His Apostles the power to forgive people's sins.

Even the corrupt pharisees (equivalent of today's hierarchy) of Jesus' time knew that only God can forgive sin, “who can forgive sins but God only?” Mark 2:7.

Eh…

John 20:19&#8211 wrote: »

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!". After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Feathers

bnt wrote: »

It's all there, in black-and-white - we don't need to make any of it up. So, if you call yourself a Catholic, yet you go "huh?" or get offended when someone pulls out a bit of the Creed and says "this is what you believe" ... it might be time for you to start questioning whether you're really a Catholic or not, and act accordingly. It is intellectually dishonest, or at least self-delusional, to recite a statement of beliefs that you don't believe. It is hypocritical to be counted as a member of the Catholic Church if you don't take the words of the Creed literally.

But there's no references to contraception, women priests, etc in the Apostles' Creed. Do you think it's possible to be Catholic & question what the church teaches outside of the profession of faith (i.e. the dogma of the church)?

Pushtrak

Feathers wrote: »

But there's no references to contraception, women priests, etc in the Apostles' Creed. Do you think it's possible to be Catholic & question what the church teaches outside of the profession of faith (i.e. the dogma of the church)?

What do you suppose?

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers.

dog·ma   [dawg-muh, dog-] Show IPA
noun, plural dog·mas or ( Rare ) dog·ma·ta  [dawg-muh-tuh] Show IPA.
1.
an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2.
a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3.
prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4.
a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty.

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

Feathers

Pushtrak wrote: »

What do you suppose?

Well your probably better up on your distinctions of religious terms that I am so. My understanding is that not all teachings of the church are dogmatic. Only rather articles such as the Trinity, Mary as the mother of God, the sacraments, the communion of saints, etc.

This is probably a better explaination that I could outline:

forums.catholic.com wrote:

In Catholicism, we recognize three classifications of "doctrine":

1) Dogma
2) Canon Law (or disciplines), and ...
3) Theolegoumena (or theological opinions).

Dogmas are those things which I must believe and must obey in order to be a Catholic (e.g. the Trinity or Purgatory).

Canon law are those things which I do not necessarily have to believe, but must obey in order to be a Catholic (e.g. the discipline of the celibate priesthood ....a Catholic may believe that married men should be priests, but may not encourage his priest to marry, etc.).

And theolegoumena (or theological opinions) are those areas in which the Church has yet to take an official position, and so we have the freedom to choose between one position or another (e.g. the authorship of the Gospel of John, in which a Catholic is free to believe that John personally wrote it, or that it was dictated by John and someone else wrote it, or that John's disciples wrote it, based on his oral traditions, after his death).

I'll even give a source for mine — http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=122245

& yes, as I said at the start of the thread, I don't think you stop being Catholic by disagreeing with non-dogmatic teachings of the church.

Run_to_da_hills

mickydoomsux wrote: »

All that nonsense aside, the real problem with it is that it is a means for the church to gather information on people to solidify their position of power.

This would have been a good form of gathering personal information in the dark ages of the cruisades but not any more. The authorites now gather all personbal information from social network sites and mobile phone records etc

Confessal is a dark and evil side of the Catholic church, even going into a gloomy and musty smelling confession box would give anyone the creeps. Also I wouild guess a priest would get bored to bits hearing all the same stuff week after week from the same people.

Our lord certainly did not want it that way,

This passage hits the nail on the head, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much". James 5vs16

Bannasidhe

Feathers wrote: »

Well your probably better up on your distinctions of religious terms that I am so. My understanding is that not all teachings of the church are dogmatic. Only rather articles such as the Trinity, Mary as the mother of God, the sacraments, the communion of saints, etc.

This is probably a better explaination that I could outline:



I'll even give a source for mine — http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=122245

& yes, as I said at the start of the thread, I don't think you stop being Catholic by disagreeing with non-dogmatic teachings of the church.

By the same token if one is a Catholic one is expected to agree with the dogmatic teachings - on contraception, homosexuality, transubstantiation, divorce etc etc.

How many Irish who define themselves as Catholics use condoms or the pill? Have no problem with homosexuality? Do not believe the wine and host literally become blood and flesh? Are divorced?

Pushtrak

Feathers wrote: »

Only rather articles such as the Trinity, Mary as the mother of God, the sacraments, the communion of saints, etc.

There isn't really a good way for a Catholic while disagreeing with the above. From here

If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.

It provides a list and goes on at length on each of them. For brevity, I'll just include the list.

The Unity and Trinity of God
God the Creator
God the Redeemer
The Mother of the Redeemer
God the Sanctifier
The Catholic Church
The Communion of Saints
The Sacraments
Baptism
Confirmation
Holy Eucharist
Penance
Holy Orders
Matrimony
Extreme Unction
The Last Things

Oh, from what you quoted... One doesn't have to agree with canon law, but one must act as if they do. An important point to note. Couldn't really find other good stuff on canon law. Anyway, Bannasidhe already went in to that in the post just above mine... As for canon law.. I don't want to get bogged down in theological legalese tripe.

FergusODowd

catbear wrote: »

However when Bertie made me financially accountable for abuse compensation, being passive was no longer acceptable.

Both the church and the state should be financially accountable. Never forget the state also had a huge part to play in its failure to prevent abuse in state institutions. As for Bertie Ahern he should be in jail, but instead he's still being chauffeured around in a state car. What's the state doing about that ?

Bannasidhe

FergusODowd wrote: »

Both the church and the state should be financially accountable. Never forget the state also had a huge part to play in its failure to prevent abuse in state institutions. As for Bertie Ahern he should be in jail, but instead he's still being chauffeured around in a state car. What's the government doing about that ?

Both should be - but the Church is claiming it can't pay it's share even as the head of that church sits on a golden throne.
As for Bertie - yes, he should be tried. That is up to the DPP.
The State cannot remove Brady and others guilty of covering up abuse, the Church has to do that.

Pushtrak

FergusODowd wrote: »

Both the church and the state should be financially accountable. Never forget the state also had a huge part to play in its failure to prevent abuse in state institutions. As for Bertie Ahern he should be in jail, but instead he's still being chauffeured around in a state car. What's the state doing about that ?

You think both should be financially accountable. Yet, you say Bertie should be in jail. Do you not think the guilty within the church and their facilitators ought to face legal action? (Outside of monetarily I mean...)

FergusODowd

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Both should be - but the Church is claiming it can't pay it's share even as the head of that church sits on a golden throne.

So does Michael D Higgins, but it looks like the state can't pay either.

FergusODowd

Pushtrak wrote: »

You think both should be financially accountable. Yet, you say Bertie should be in jail. Do you not think the guilty within the church and their facilitators ought to face legal action? (Outside of monetarily I mean...)

Of course they should, yet again, what are the state doing about it ?

Bannasidhe

Pushtrak wrote: »

You think both should be financially accountable. Yet, you say Bertie should be in jail. Do you not think the guilty within the church and their facilitators ought to face legal action? (Outside of monetarily I mean...)

I said I think Bertie should be put on trial. I also thought Haughey should.

Those who facilitated child abusers should be put on trial. All of them.

Bannasidhe

FergusODowd wrote: »

So does Michael D Higgins, but it looks like the state can't pay either.

Does Mickey D sit on a golden throne?
Does the Irish State possess countless priceless works of art (many of which were paid for by the sale of indulgences btw)?
The sale of a Michelangelo and a Raphael should cover the Church's liability.

Pushtrak

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I said I think Bertie should be put on trial. I also thought Haughey should.

Those who facilitated child abusers should be put on trial. All of them.

My post was directed at Fergus. It seemed like he was taking one view of the state, and one of the catholic church.

Bannasidhe

Pushtrak wrote: »

My post was directed at Fergus. It seemed like he was taking one view of the state, and one of the catholic church.

Apologies . Teach me to pay more attention...

bnt

Feathers wrote: »

But there's no references to contraception, women priests, etc in the Apostles' Creed. Do you think it's possible to be Catholic & question what the church teaches outside of the profession of faith (i.e. the dogma of the church)?

I'm not Catholic, so I don't know how Catholics feel about such things. To be blunt: that's their problem. Just why do they accept the Vatican's authority on these things? Is the Vatican saying what they want to hear anyway? Is it down to the meaning of the word "Catholic" (meaning "universal") in the Creed? Other biblical statements such as the things Paul reportedly said about the Church? (Paul was not Jesus, yet his words seem to be taken just as seriously.) I don't know.