A la carte vs devout and treatement of atheists

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because no-one has any religious belief that exists in complete isolation from their any other beliefs or actions. Its people like those you describe, who just believe in god for security, that do things like call themselves catholic on the census despite being no such thing (and probably actively disliking the church) or tell people who call for secular education that "it did me no harm" or "go to a different school" (as if thats always an option). These people are the dull masses that stagnate any needed change towards secularism, they are worse the minority of anti-secularist religious fundies.

Look at it in terms of the theist marrying the atheist in a church. How many people in this country actually want a religious marriage, as opposed to a traditional marriage? How many theists would be happy with a completely non religious marriage that ticks the boxes like big, impressive hall and personal ceremony? But if we want to allow marriages to happen wherever the couple actually want, with whatever ceremony they want, who do you think would be the biggest obstacle to bringing in the legislation? Who's going to say "ah sure, you have to get married in a church, this is a catholic country"?

Is this not law already? I don't see why anyone could oppose that with justification.

If people don't want a church wedding they shouldn't have to have one. If people do, then do.

iguana

To bring this back to the OP, a huge part of the issue in Birroc's thread was a parenting issue inasmuch as a religious issue. I have found, as a new parent, that when it comes to how you parent you will mostly find that your choices come under 'attack' if your choices make the other people feel bad about their choices. In this instance I suspect that in a lot of cases the à la carte Catholics dislike the church and it's hold on society and have niggling regrets that the baptised their children and allow them to do Catholic instruction at school because they know that to do so reinforces a situation that they aren't really that happy about it. But they did it because everyone does, so it's ok - nothing they could do about it. Then someone like Birroc comes along, refusing to baptise his children and keeping them out of religious instruction at school. He shows that things don't have to be done just because they always have been done that way and it makes them feel bad about not having the courage of their convictions. People who baptised their children because it's a requirement of a faith they believe in don't feel threatened by people who don't baptise, so they don't care.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

If only there was some kind of forum where christians could argue about which one of them was right.

Certainly better than sorting out religious differences with swords, guns, bombs etc.

BTW, can't say I'm impressed with the charters of these religions, or their heavenly moderators either -- I wonder how many wars could have been prevented if the deity-du-jour had dropped by and carded or banned forum members for breaches of the peace or even just incivility.

Perhaps it's because the moderators don't exist and the charters are just invented for their own benefit.

Mark Hamill

philologos wrote: »

Is this not law already? I don't see why anyone could oppose that with justification.

If people don't want a church wedding they shouldn't have to have one. If people do, then do.

Maybe I have it wrong (my brother was going to marry a few years ago in a civil wedding, but there were too many restrictions at the time, so he postponed it), but I understood that the system essentially offered two choices: a church wedding (which you just sort out with the church), or a civil wedding in a registry office/approved place. The latter leaves you severely limited in terms of where you can get married (no marquees, private dwellings or open air and the venue will have to satisfy the Registrar), when and who actually can preside over it (there is another thread discussing new laws to let non religious organisations preside over weddings).

expectationlost

think it might be an age thing older more devout brought up not to argue, sure they'll pray for you anyway

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you don't believe in god, you don't get into heaven. Thats the basis of pretty much all religions everywhere.

No offence, but this is a steaming pile of horse manure. Islam teaches this, and some Christian traditions. Catholicism, the dominant form of Christianity in Ireland, explicitly rejects it. As far as Judaism is concerned, personal salvation is not a major theme but, to the extent that Jews believe in personal salvation, they believe it depends on acts, not beliefs. Hinduism and Budhhism have no concept of heaven, and neither teaches that individual destiny depends on believing in god. Nor do Confucianism or Shintoism teach this.

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

No offence, but this is a steaming pile of horse manure. Islam teaches this, and some Christian traditions. Catholicism, the dominant form of Christianity in Ireland, explicitly rejects it. As far as Judaism is concerned, personal salvation is not a major theme but, to the extent that Jews believe in personal salvation, they believe it depends on acts, not beliefs. Hinduism and Budhhism have no concept of heaven, and neither teaches that individual destiny depends on believing in god. Nor do Confucianism or Shintoism teach this.

Could you link me to what the Catholic church requires for you to get into heaven? I was always of the belief you needed to be keen on Jesus/God as one requirement. Or to put it another way to reject god or jesus is a mortal sin and to not repent sees you doomed for hell.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Catholicism, the dominant form of Christianity in Ireland, explicitly rejects it.

Since when does catholicism reject that? You can only get into catholic heaven if you are a catholic, and in order to be a catholic you need to believe in god (its the most fundamental part of the Apostles Creed according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church). The only possible exception is someone who is ignorant of god or jesus.

Peregrinus wrote: »

As far as Judaism is concerned, personal salvation is not a major theme but, to the extent that Jews believe in personal salvation, they believe it depends on acts, not beliefs.

Acts you only do because you believe in god, without god the impetus to do religious obligations isn't inherent in the instructions.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hinduism and Budhhism have no concept of heaven, and neither teaches that individual destiny depends on believing in god. Nor do Confucianism or Shintoism teach this.

So the religions that don't have heaven, or gods, don't require you to believe in god in order to get into heaven? I never would have figured that :rolleyes:. Did I really need to specify that my post only applies to religions that actually have gods and heavens?

RDM_83 again

seamus wrote: »

And people who speak out about rape are inherent rapists and people who speak out about murder are wanna murderers?

Eh, no. That's a straw man fallacy. As Dades points out, paedophilia causes injury, it has a victim. It is something where each of has the potential to be injured by it. Thus we are justified in speaking out against it.

Homosexuality and atheism on the other hand are things which do not have the potential to cause injury to the individual. Unless that individual feels that they could potentially be homosexual or atheist and feels that these are "wrong". In which case they will speak out against it.

I'm sorry but the homophobes are repressed homosexuals theory doesn't really make much sense if you think about it.
Broadly historically speaking in most cultures homosexuality is taboo, if all these homophobes are really repressed homosexuals surely these taboo's wouldn;t have occured.
(speaking about male homosexuality here, I'm not sure if female homosexuality can be considered the same way, more just ignored)

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Since when does catholicism reject that? You can only get into catholic heaven if you are a catholic . . .

Absolutely definitely not true, in authoritative Catholic teaching. Had you linked to the section of the Catechism which actually discusses this question, you would have found that the only people the Catholic church regards as excluded from heaven are those “who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it”. And the Catechism explicitly affirms that non-Catholics, non-Christians and non-theists can indeed “achieve eternal salvation”. (So there’s hope for you yet! ) Paras 846 and 847, if you're interested , and they are footnoted to other authorities if you want to dig into this further.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Acts you only do because you believe in god, without god the impetus to do religious obligations isn't inherent in the instructions.

Again, absolutely definitely not true, on an authority even more authoritative than the Catechism.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So the religions that don't have heaven, or gods, don't require you to believe in god in order to get into heaven? I never would have figured that . Did I really need to specify that my post only applies to religions that actually have gods and heavens?

Hinduism doesn’t have gods?

And, if you make a claim about “pretty much all religions everywhere”, I don’t think you can blame readers for thinking you’re making a general claim about religion.

ShooterSF

From that link:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

That part in bold dooms every atheist in this forum to hell so while technically if you don't know the church exists you might get in, for anyone in this country past the age of a few months/years it's irrelevant.

Sarky

robindch wrote: »

Certainly better than sorting out religious differences with swords, guns, bombs etc.

BTW, can't say I'm impressed with the charters of these religions, or their heavenly moderators either -- I wonder how many wars could have been prevented if the deity-du-jour had dropped by and carded or banned forum members for breaches of the peace or even just incivility.

Perhaps it's because the moderators don't exist and the charters are just invented for their own benefit.

So the Resurrestion was really just a case of a re-regged troll? :pac:

Daftendirekt

Sarky wrote: »

So the Resurrestion was really just a case of a re-regged troll? :pac:

The earliest incarnation of facekicker, if I'm not mistaken.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Absolutely definitely not true, in authoritative Catholic teaching. Had you linked to the section of the Catechism which actually discusses this question, you would have found that the only people the Catholic church regards as excluded from heaven are those “who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it”. And the Catechism explicitly affirms that non-Catholics, non-Christians and non-theists can indeed “achieve eternal salvation”. (So there’s hope for you yet! ) Paras 846 and 847, if you're interested , and they are footnoted to other authorities if you want to dig into this further.

You are saying that the catholic position is that you have to be a catholic (be part of the catholic church) in order to get into heaven. But in order to be part of the catholic church, you need to believe in god. Therefore, you need to believe in god in order to get into heaven. Para 161 of the catechism:
Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"
I already mention the single exception that is explained in para 848, that of someone who is, in some way, ignorant of god or the church.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, absolutely definitely not true, on an authority even more authoritative than the Catechism.

Why would the catechism (or the new testament piece you quoted) be an authority in Judaism?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hinduism doesn’t have gods?

I said "no heaven, or gods" :rolleyes:

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, if you make a claim about “pretty much all religions everywhere”, I don’t think you can blame readers for thinking you’re making a general claim about religion.

I made a claim about belief in god that religions everywhere require to get into heaven. It obviously doesn't apply if a religion has no heaven, or no god, or both.

Mistress 69

Hi to All and a slightly belated Happy New Year

Just an observation


Love The Bible, Nets Bible College, Catholic Statues Ireland and Prayers.... these adverts are on nearly all of the few pages of this thread I have viewed....

Anybody else perplexed


Mistress 69

lazygal

I keep getting ads for psychic readings. Have a giggle at them mostly.

ShooterSF

lazygal wrote: »

I keep getting ads for psychic readings. Have a giggle at them mostly.

Ive thought of getting my free reading for the laugh to some mailinator box.