Christmas mass! (Chrismass?)

joseph brand

My wife has gone to mass with the kids. She thinks she's doing a 'good deed'. Tradition and all that. "You want them to grow up with NOTHING?", she asks. It's xmas eve, and I'm not getting into an argument. It will just spoil the beers later on.

I can just picture almost everyone in the church tapping their feet, checking their phones for the time, hoping it's a short one. They don't want to be there. The 'Grand Delusion' is in full swing.

The priest and the regulars must be studying all the new faces, wondering if they're in the wrong parish. It's ridiculous.

So I'll just stay at home as the heathen of the family. A godless grinch with no festive spirit. At least I can look forward to my absence from mass being discussed at my parents' dinner table tomorrow. No doubt they'll bring up 'Dickie Dawkins' (ha ha so funny). Oh joy!

Cabaal

I was talking to my mother earlier about mass earlier.
My dad stopped going to regular mass many years ago but he still dealt with the public alot in his job, he once had a regular customer say "I'd love to be like you, a person who doesn't care about not going to mass"

The man hated going to mass but did it for the wife etc etc,

joseph brand, if they bring up the mass thing or Dawkins. You can always hit them back with this handy survey which shows the more religious you are....the more you're fine with torture

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/week-god-122014

Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life conducted surveys and found that the more religious an American is, the more likely he or she is to support torture.

porsche boy

If she wanted to do a good deed she should have taken your old clothes out and headed into town to disperse them to the homeless. That's a good deed. Sitting in a cold church listening to a priest waffle about giving while passing around a collection plate is hypocrisy. Sorry, I don't mean to insult your wife's belief's.

Hotblack Desiato

So, so glad I married another non-believer

magicbastarder

the church across the road has been playing christmas carols on the bells for the evening. i wouldn't mind if they did a good job of it, but it sounds so bloody dreary.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So, so glad I married another non-believer

Yep this. Staying in with wine and food beats shuffling around a cold church mumbling with other once a year Catholics.

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

the church across the road has been playing christmas carols on the bells for the evening. i wouldn't mind if they did a good job of it, but it sounds so bloody dreary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBBlRB1HH2g

:pac:

lazygal

magicbastarder wrote: »

the church across the road has been playing christmas carols on the bells for the evening. i wouldn't mind if they did a good job of it, but it sounds so bloody dreary.

Noise pollution complaint time.

Hotblack Desiato

lazygal wrote: »

Noise pollution complaint time.

Cheerless atheist stereotype time.

If that was the worst way in which religion interfered in my family's life, I'd be very happy.

shruikan2553

Luckily for me and my girlfriend both of our parents are the half passed kind of religious where they go to mass once a year and don't believe in god so we got to dilute the religiousness further and avoid being annoyed by parents as they go for their parents.

Pherekydes

My wife still believes, but not enough to go to mass on her own. She hasn't been, even at Christmas, since the youngest stopped going about 3 years' ago.

Cantremember

If only the occasionals and casuals said enough is enough and left it to the die hards.

Hotblack Desiato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casuals
careful, they'll be out every Sunday looking for a ruck with the 'opposing team' :eek:

JumpShivers

Thank you OP. Here's my two cents *mayyybe a bit too much thought about. * :P

Church packed to the rafters with people who will only go for Christmas Eve, because it's 'tradition'. They don't even believe in God, but go along because it's 'tradition'. These are the same people who will get married in a church because it's 'traditional' to get married in a church.

It must be utter hell for the people who do attend every week and who do practice their religion, that they can't get a seat to sit on. Typically, you're supposed to enter the church and have a quiet prayer yourself, but of course, this is taken over by chatting 'non believers' who don't know how you're supposed to behave in a church. Or even, when people are going up for Communion, it is not an invitation for you to wish eachother a 'Merry Christmas'.



Basically, if you're going to go along to the church for 'tradition', do remember that there are people there who are practicing their religion, and you're not going to a circus.

katydid

JumpShivers wrote: »

Thank you OP. Here's my two cents *mayyybe a bit too much thought about. * :P

Church packed to the rafters with people who will only go for Christmas Eve, because it's 'tradition'. They don't even believe in God, but go along because it's 'tradition'. These are the same people who will get married in a church because it's 'traditional' to get married in a church.

It must be utter hell for the people who do attend every week and who do practice their religion, that they can't get a seat to sit on. Typically, you're supposed to enter the church and have a quiet prayer yourself, but of course, this is taken over by chatting 'non believers' who don't know how you're supposed to behave in a church. Or even, when people are going up for Communion, it is not an invitation for you to wish eachother a 'Merry Christmas'.



Basically, if you're going to go along to the church for 'tradition', do remember that there are people there who are practicing their religion, and you're not going to a circus.

I find, as a regular church goer, that the people who come ag Christmas and Easter are generally respectful of the occasion and of the "regulars". And I welcome them, whatever the reason they come for. A church should be a welcoming place for all - it's between a person and their conscience why they are there. I was in church this morning, and it was full to the rafters...the main non-regulars were the teenagers and twenty somethings coming along for the occasion or because they are home for Christmas. for many, it's a way of catching up with friends they haven't seen for ages. And if that's the only reason they come, fair enough. They come.

From the point of view of a believer, that's enough...

katydid

joseph brand wrote: »

My wife has gone to mass with the kids. She thinks she's doing a 'good deed'. Tradition and all that. "You want them to grow up with NOTHING?", she asks. It's xmas eve, and I'm not getting into an argument. It will just spoil the beers later on.

I can just picture almost everyone in the church tapping their feet, checking their phones for the time, hoping it's a short one. They don't want to be there. The 'Grand Delusion' is in full swing.

The priest and the regulars must be studying all the new faces, wondering if they're in the wrong parish. It's ridiculous.

So I'll just stay at home as the heathen of the family. A godless grinch with no festive spirit. At least I can look forward to my absence from mass being discussed at my parents' dinner table tomorrow. No doubt they'll bring up 'Dickie Dawkins' (ha ha so funny). Oh joy!

Sounds to me like you're trying very hard to be the "bad boy". Look, it's 2014, no one cares whether you go to mass or not. But on the other hand, you don't have to assume that everyone there is just there for show and are totally disrespecting it. There are people who go once a year and, while not wishing to go every week, enjoy the annual ritual. Whether for religious reasons or for nostalgia, it doesn't matter.

If your wife feels it's important for your kids to have "something" to fall back on, then why can't you just tolerate that? If you don't believe in God, it's just an empty ritual to you anyway. And if they grow up and reject it, you can gloat to your heart's content. But what harm is it doing YOU right now?

Hotblack Desiato

People of my generation (approaching md 40s ) were well schooled back in the day as to how to behave in church, if our mammies didn't do it the teacher did with a ruler!

When for a funeral I must enter a temple of molestation catholic church at least I know to shut up, stand when others do, sit when others do, don't kneel, then gtfo

The 20-something offspring of the 60s/70s generation cultural catholics are unlikely to have the slightest effin' clue, but nontheless feel obliged to go once a year at least :rolleyes:

sh1tstirrer

porsche boy wrote: »

If she wanted to do a good deed she should have taken your old clothes out and headed into town to disperse them to the homeless. That's a good deed. Sitting in a cold church listening to a priest waffle about giving while passing around a collection plate is hypocrisy. Sorry, I don't mean to insult your wife's belief's.

How is it? he's asking people to give while he takes from them

Hotblack Desiato

katydid wrote: »

If your wife feels it's important for your kids to have "something" to fall back on, then why can't you just tolerate that? If you don't believe in God, it's just an empty ritual to you anyway. And if they grow up and reject it, you can gloat to your heart's content. But what harm is it doing YOU right now?

It's feeding them lies, encouraging them to conform to nonsense rather than think, giving them false hope, and encouraging obediance of a false authority.
'Sure what's the harm' - isn't it always the more religious party to the relationship who is given free rein? What's the harm of a religion free upbringing - any adult can join any religion if they so choose (subject to minor surgery in some cases) so surely a religion free upbringing is the most open-minded and the least harm?

Of course we all know that the real reason is that without childhood indoctrination in religion, it would be an extremely niche pursuit within a generation, and that just won't do.

katydid

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's feeding them lies, encouraging them to conform to nonsense rather than think, giving them false hope, and encouraging obediance of a false authority.
'Sure what's the harm' - isn't it always the more religious party to the relationship who is given free rein? What's the harm of a religion free upbringing - any adult can join any religion if they so choose (subject to minor surgery in some cases) so surely a religion free upbringing is the most open-minded and the least harm?

Of course we all know that the real reason is that without childhood
indoctrination in religion, it would be an extremely niche pursuit within a generation, and that just won't do.

Can you demonstrate definitively that they are lies they are being told? If not, then you can't say that for sure.

There's no harm at all in a religion free upbringing, but no harm in the opposite either.

Hotblack Desiato

Believers reject all religions other than their own, why can't the reasons used to reject all the others be applied to yours as well?

katydid

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Believers reject all religions other than their own, why can't the reasons used to reject all the others be applied to yours as well?

Most believers respect other religions, even if they reject their beliefs.

Hotblack Desiato

That's not an answer though. What makes your religion true rather than one like the others that you respect?

katydid

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's not an answer though. What makes your religion true rather than one like the others that you respect?

Nothing provable. Or disprovable.

Why is it not an answer?

Hotblack Desiato

It's not an answer because one can respect all religions while believing none of them.

Faith is an explanation for belief without reason, but why faith in religion A but not B, C, D...? all make equally valid appeals to faith.

katydid

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not an answer because one can respect all religions while believing none of them.

Faith is an explanation for belief without reason, but why faith in religion A but not B, C, D...? all make equally valid appeals to faith.

I didn't say you couldn't. I'm talking about the people who don't believe in any religion but don't expect those who do believe.

Hotblack Desiato

Don't respect those who do believe?

I don't, particularly. I don't endow belief in UFOs or the evils of water fluoridation with any respect, why should religion be treated with any more respect except as an appeal to tradition?

katydid

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Don't respect those who do believe?

I don't, particularly. I don't endow belief in UFOs or the evils of water fluoridation with any respect, why should religion be treated with any more respect except as an appeal to tradition?

So you want me to respect your lack of belief, but you're not prepared to respect my belief...

Cabaal

katydid wrote: »

Can you demonstrate definitively that they are lies they are being told? If not, then you can't say that for sure.

There's no harm at all in a religion free upbringing, but no harm in the opposite either.

You're right, scientology it is so.
Every other religion is clearly a lie

magicbastarder

lazygal wrote: »

Noise pollution complaint time.

i'd have to be one hell of an asshole to buy a house across the road from a church and then complain about the bells.

Cabaal

katydid wrote: »

So you want me to respect your lack of belief, but you're not prepared to respect my belief...

Hard to respect anyone who in anyway supports a bigoted organisation that opposes marriage equality for my fellow human beings.

If you want to believe in a god then do, but don't support an organisation that preaches hate and who has people involved high up in the organisation who are OK with denying cancer treatment to women just because the women would have to take contraceptives as part of the treatment.

katydid

Cabaal wrote: »

Hard to respect anyone who in anyway supports a bigoted organisation that opposes marriage equality for my fellow human beings.

If you want to believe in a god then do, but don't support an organisation that preaches hate and who has people involved high up in the organisation who are OK with denying cancer treatment to women just because the women would have to take contraceptives as part of the treatment.

I don't support that organisation. But I understand those that do; I've had long discussions with RC's who insist on sticking with the church despite their misgivings. From their point of view THEY are the church, not the corrupt priests or the conservative hierarchy, and they won't be hunted out of it. I respect that.

Shedite27

I hope everyone starts threads about everything they nearly did.

That's the sort of stuff the internet was made for.

Good lad OP

jimmymorrison2

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd have to be one hell of an asshole to buy a house across the road from a church and then complain about the bells.

quite common now actually

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Hard to respect anyone who in anyway supports a bigoted organisation.....

And it's hard to respect someone who gives atheism a bad name by making lazy and bigoted assumptions about other people.

katydid wrote: »

I don't support that organisation.

But it's easier to admire someone who takes someone else's bigoted assumptions, gift-wraps them in a nice box and hands them back to them.


Beannachtaí an tSeasúir.

Stealthfins

jimmymorrison2 wrote: »

quite common now actually

Being an asshole or buying a house outside the church ?

Nothing like the sound of churcbells, they've been clanging for year's.

I think it's quite nice, I don't go to church but there could be a time when you'd prefer to hear church bell's rather than a call to prayer.

iguana

Luckily, with the exception of my grandmother, no-one in my family is in any way religious. We all went for a lovely riverside walk with our combined dogs at the time many people would have been in mass. It was lovely.

katydid

Deleted User wrote: »

But it's easier to admire someone who takes someone else's bigoted assumptions, gift-wraps them in a nice box and hands them back to them.

.

???

Hotblack Desiato

katydid wrote: »

So you want me to respect your lack of belief, but you're not prepared to respect my belief...

I didn't ask you to respect anything.
Belief or non-belief is an idea, and like any other idea should be fully exposed to examination and critique

katydid wrote: »

I don't support that organisation. But I understand those that do; I've had long discussions with RC's who insist on sticking with the church despite their misgivings. From their point of view THEY are the church, not the corrupt priests or the conservative hierarchy, and they won't be hunted out of it. I respect that.

That's a cop-out on their part - it's not a reformed church that (at least in theory) can be changed by the views of the laity.
The RCC just doesn't care what the views of its members are, the ones leaving or the ones staying.

The only way the RCC will change is if the haemorrhaging of members becomes too much for even it to ignore, and as it chose to close off the defection process rather than examine why so many 'born catholics' were willing to take action to show they wanted nothing further to do with the church, there's a lot of fingers firmly planted in ears.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

Sounds to me like you're trying very hard to be the "bad boy". Look, it's 2014, no one cares whether you go to mass or not.

You'd be suprised, there are plenty of people who are horrified at the thought of others not going to mass or worse not believing in the baby Jesus (especially if they are members of their own family). It is seen in some circles as bringing shame onto their parents. There is still a section of the population which are deeply bigoted against those of differing beliefs, but thankfully this section is slowly dying off.

But on the other hand, you don't have to assume that everyone there is just there for show and are totally disrespecting it.

But the thing is, it is a well known phenomenon that there is a large section of society which only goes to mass very occasionally (often only three or four times in a lifetime), and that they do it for show, to be seen to be religious without following any of the directions of their religion. For example if you look at all the surveys and statistical studies done on religiosity in Ireland it is necessary to conclude that only about 25% of the country are truly rcc people (i.e. that they follow the rules and believe in god). Yet despite this 84% of the population report in the census as catholic. Now I know there is the fact that there are thousands of mammys around the country who fill out forms including their long absent sons and daughters, simply because "sure, they'll only get the answers wrong", but there is a large proportion of the country which either thinks that catholicism is a cultural thing which can be divorced from religion (similar to the atheist jew phenomenon) or want to be seen as catholic because there is either some stigma attached to non-catholicism or some kudos from pretending to be one.

There are people who go once a year and, while not wishing to go every week, enjoy the annual ritual. Whether for religious reasons or for nostalgia, it doesn't matter.

But it would be better for all concerned if they were honest with themselves and stopped referring themselves as catholic (for example the rcc could no longer point at numbers, and we'd be in a situation where there would be no argument against the implementation of a proper, secular, education system).

If your wife feels it's important for your kids to have "something" to fall back on, then why can't you just tolerate that?

Because the imposition of superstition and ignorance on others (especially when they are too young to understand) is an intolerable thing to accept for any right thinking person. No child should be introduced to religion until they are at least old enough to properly question its assumptions (which I'd put at about 14). If they want religion at that stage, at least it is their decision. What Mr. Brand's wife is doing is imposing her beliefs on those unable to defend themselves against it.

If you don't believe in God, it's just an empty ritual to you anyway.

This is beside the point.

And if they grow up and reject it, you can gloat to your heart's content.

This is just mean spirited and small minded.

But what harm is it doing YOU right now?

It is not the harm to Joseph, but the potential harm to his kids. By introducing kids to religion before they are able to critically examine and deconstruct it, you are running the risk that they grow up as credulous and superstitious adults unable to discern truth from fantasy.

katydid

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I didn't ask you to respect anything.
Belief or non-belief is an idea, and like any other idea should be fully exposed to examination and critique




That's a cop-out on their part - it's not a reformed church that (at least in theory) can be changed by the views of the laity.
The RCC just doesn't care what the views of its members are, the ones leaving or the ones staying.

The only way the RCC will change is if the haemorrhaging of members becomes too much for even it to ignore, and as it chose to close off the defection process rather than examine why so many 'born catholics' were willing to take action to show they wanted nothing further to do with the church, there's a lot of fingers firmly planted in ears.

Ok, you don't want me to respect your point of view. I will anyway, because that's how I am. Being critical of belief has nothing to do with respect.

I agree with you about the RCC, but I nevertheless understand the point of view of those who decide to stay in and fight from the inside.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

Nothing provable. Or disprovable.

Why is it not an answer?

Because you are offering no answer.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

IFrom their point of view THEY are the church, not the corrupt priests or the conservative hierarchy, and they won't be hunted out of it. I respect that.

They are wrong. And frankly they are idiots for believing this falsifiable nonsense.

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

They are wrong. And frankly they are idiots for believing this falsifiable nonsense.

How do you know they are wrong? Can you state it categorically?

iguana

katydid wrote: »

How do you know they are wrong? Can you state it categorically?

As categorically as he can say that a unicorn didn't fart out the universe. You can't absolutely rule it out but it's such a stupid 'theory' you know it didn't happen.

katydid

iguana wrote: »

As categorically as he can say that a unicorn didn't fart out the universe. You can't absolutely rule it out but it's such a stupid 'theory' you know it didn't happen.

That's your OPINION.

Cabaal

katydid wrote: »

That's your OPINION.

So God was created by a unicorn farting everything into existence and the earth sits on elephants on the back of a giant turtle in space.

Grand that's settled,

Sounds all as plausible as a god impregnating a women with his son/himself, to save mankind for sins they hadn't committed yet. Oh and each week people go to a building and eat God.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

How do you know they are wrong? Can you state it categorically?

Because church statute specifically states what the body of the church is (the priesthood), and who has power over the body of the church (the Roman Curia lead by the Pope who has veto).

I can categorically state that they are wrong because the rules of the church says they are wrong.

Hotblack Desiato

katydid wrote: »

Ok, you don't want me to respect your point of view.

I don't think that any point of view deserves respect in and of itself.
People are entitled to hold all sorts of points of view, that doesn't mean I have to hold the views themselves in any respect whatsoever, especially when they are contradicted by all available credible evidence, such as creationism.

Holding an idea 'in respect' is just an excuse or justification to shield it from criticism. Those who critique religion are often accused of a 'lack of respect' because believers often think that just because they don't question their belief, no one else should either.

I will anyway, because that's how I am. Being critical of belief has nothing to do with respect.

It's a question of definition, perhaps the above clarifies things somewhat?

I agree with you about the RCC, but I nevertheless understand the point of view of those who decide to stay in and fight from the inside.

Any person of integrity would have left the roman catholic church by now. It is an irredeemable criminal organisation.

iguana

katydid wrote: »

That's your OPINION.

Unless by that you mean that a unicorn farting out the universe isn't a stupid theory, you are using the word opinion incorrectly as that was the only opinion in my post. The rest of it was more of a very short allegory.

katydid

iguana wrote: »

Unless by that you mean that a unicorn farting out the universe isn't a stupid theory, you are using the word opinion incorrectly as that was the only opinion in my post. The rest of it was more of a very short allegory.

As I said, your opinion...