Hi, I'm a cultural Christian

[scroyle]

This post makes me wonder if you are nothing but a poe. That means a fake, or a troll if you will. You state not to believe in superstition but now you are calling things "holy" and believe that an "atheist"(though I guess by your definition, i.e. non-christian/non-religious) would defile eating a cracker ... You earlier stated that you thought nothing of this ceremony at all and that you did it out of cultural duty. Now you are speaking of it being defiled ... That's a huge contradiction. Too huge for me to be sure I can take you seriously.

Now, you are confused. Of course I accept things that are holy should be treated with respect. That's why I'm a cultural Christian. Sigh!  Is it so hard for people to accept the position of a cultural Christian? The altar is holy. I wouldn't step on it for example. When I enter a church, I make a sign to show my respect towards the altar of Christ. The sacrament is holy. I wouldn't throw it away. I'd put it in my mouth and swallow it. But "holy" doesn't mean it's got some magical power. It simply means something people have revered for a long time. When I spoke about an atheist defiling the sacrament, I was just illustrating why an atheist has no jurisdiction to decide who is or is not a Christian. They can't even take the Sacrament without defiling it (I think that's what I said). So how can they rule on who is or is not a Christian? Only the Church can decide on that, surely?

But again, it doesn't mean there is something magical about the Sacrament. Where is the contradiction?

You obviously attach very strict meaning to words like "holy". Religious words have a deeper meaning for you than they have for me.

When I say the Creed, I turn to one direction. At one part of the Creed, I bow. The Creed is holy. But that's not because it's got some supernatural power or that God exists as a supernatural being. It's because I'm a cultural Christian and I show deep reverence to my own religious culture.  How is that contradictory?

I sense that for most of you, a person is either a strident atheist or he's a fundy Christian. You can't have someone who doesn't accept the supernatural and at the same time shows deep respect to his religious tradition. That's why you people find it so hard to understand what a cultural Christian is.

[La Dolce Vita]

How can they defile it? What does it mean to defile it?

And as I said, you're an atheist, by textbook definition, do you defile it?

Also, what country do you live in? The countries with the highest amounts of atheists are in Scandinavia, and they don't have the low christianity stats that you describe. This is also not a place where most homes for the elderly or orphanages, etc. are run by religious organizations.

[scroyle]

How can they defile it? What does it mean to defile it?

And as I said, you're an atheist, by textbook definition, do you defile it?

OK, now I know what you mean.  I sounded offensive and I didn't even think of it. To say that atheists defile the Sacrament is highly insulting and I'm really sorry to have said that. But the truth is the Church does declare that a non-Communicant (and that includes atheists) who takes the Sacrament defiles the holy sacrament of Christ. It's the language used by the Church but it's not meant to be insulting. Now that I think of it, it does sound terrible. It's like treating non-Christians as lepers or something. But that's not what I meant. I'll be more careful to use the language the church normally uses in such matters.

By Holy Tradition, the Sacrament of the Eucharist can only be taken by a Communicant of the Church. Of course I can take it. I'm required to take it because I'm a Communicant of the Church.  The Church actually has a register of Communicants and my name is in it.  If you are ex-communicated, you will no longer be a Communicant and you will defile the Sacrament if you take it.  Nothing sinister in what I said and it was really not intended to offend.

[Mr.Obvious]

The people who own, run, contribute to and serve in the church all want to have the same creeds said, the same prayers recited, the same rituals conducted. And that includes cultural Christians. We honour our past and the foundation of the church. To suggest that we only work on the social arm of the church and get rid of the myth part of it is to suggest that you get OUTSIDERS who never had a part to play in any contribution to the church to take over the church. But why should we give what's ours to outsiders? Why can't these outsiders start their own social work on their own without taking what doesn't belong to them?

I hope you see my point here.  The good that the church does is inextricably woven into the entire church culture and tradition. To all of us in the church, the religious culture is important. We are opposed to division and schism and so we won't do anything to offend the superstitious part of the church and I admit there are quite a lot of people in church who truly believe in the superstitious side of faith.

If you break Christians from our religious culture, social work will just fizzle out. And for the same reason, I don't think atheists can come up with a comparable structure that can rival the church. They won't have enough funding or voluntary work, etc. In this country where Christians are a small minority and free thinkers almost half the population, the Humanist Association is a small little group that can barely do anything. Why is that so? Because it's as hard to herd atheists as it is to herd cats. That's what Dawkins said with pride of atheists. But it becomes a huge problem when you want to organise good works.  You can't have it both ways. It's the religious culture and charity or no religious culture and no charity.

Again, just in case people misunderstand me, this is not a criticism of atheists. Atheists are good people but atheism is too disorganised and atheists too individualistic for there to be any effective charity organisation that's as extensive and far-reaching as the social arm of the Church and other Christian groups.

I know people here won't like what I say but it's true if you think about it and atheists are rational people - you know I'm speaking the truth even if you don't like it or don't want to admit it.

Again, you assume it will fizzle out, but that does not make it so. Secularist, atheists, humanists, agnostics, they all do a lot of great deal of charity work. So you have said, and I'm not denying you acknowledge that.
Ninos de la luna, Oxfam, Medicins Sans Frontieres, Amnesty International, Goodwill Industries and so many more... these are all effective and secular organizations. These effective ways show it is possible to build an effective and opportune system without the religious bits and the preaching of dogma etc.

The reason why you think it doesn't compare, however, is because you don't see you're comparing apples and oranges, to put it blunt. I've given you ample reasons in my previous retorts, I think, as to why this is. From resources to manpower to the time they have been in effect to (and I haven't mentioned this one yet) the hostile environment they work in (I know of one atheist charity work that couldn't even donate their money because they people they wanted to give it too didn't want money from an atheist group, their choice and loss I suppose) to the preoccupation with institutionalized and formal versions of 'relief' rather than picking up a shift in the 'soup kitchen' (which is very admirable but does not do much on the whole). They are not on equal footing, but this does not mean one is clearly better than the other. There is no reason to think that if secular institutions had the time, manpower and funds that religions have had throughout the millenia, that the secular organizations would achieve less and be less effective.

No one is interested in taking over the church. New secular organizations focused on charity are building something entirely new modelled after the few good ideas of the church and without all the extra weight and poisonous idea's and false authority. What you say that we should do, start our own thing, is exactly what I've been advocating all along. So throw away the bathwater and keep the child. But don't tell me, without there being any proof in favor of your claim, that you need the bathwater to keep the child.

But even if you were to manage to prove your claim of 'fizzeling out', there is still something very important to keep in mind.
As harsh as it may seem, if I were to be given the choice between living in a world in which no charity existed but the social security systems and institutionalized care and solidarity was available or a world in which only charity existed and no versions of these socialized and institutionalized solidarity, I would pick the former. Formal and institutionalized solidarity has simple yielded much better results and done so much more against the world's problems.
Of course we can have both, but moving more to institutionalized solidarity is simply better even if it inadvertedly breaks down some  religious forms of charity (though new and secular ones pop up more and more to take their place). And I use 'inadvertedly' because both the decline of religiousness as the growth of instititutionalized solidarity find their birth in the enlightenment.

[scroyle]

Secular or non-religious charities are NOT atheistic charities.  Let's get that straight. A lot of people who are in some of these groups are Christians. Christian charities are owned and run by the Church, pure and simple. Secular charities are run by people regardless of religious affiliation.  They are NOT atheistic charities. The paucity of atheistic charities makes it necessary for you to lump secular charities as if they were atheistic concerns but that's a mistake.

[Mr.Obvious]

Right, so they work without religion or the notion of God. A charity in the name of 'atheism' is weird in itself. But as the monopoly of religion on charity breaks, which it has started to do in the West after the dark ages, secular organisations take their place. And they are without the bathwater. Without false authority. Without religious claims. Without the self-entitled rightousness and without the moral-guilt-trip or pressure. And their structure and infrastructure is used by both atheists as theists and deists alike.

[La Dolce Vita]

OK, now I know what you mean.  I sounded offensive and I didn't even think of it. To say that atheists defile the Sacrament is highly insulting and I'm really sorry to have said that. But the truth is the Church does declare that a non-Communicant (and that includes atheists) who takes the Sacrament defiles the holy sacrament of Christ. It's the language used by the Church but it's not meant to be insulting. Now that I think of it, it does sound terrible. It's like treating non-Christians as lepers or something. But that's not what I meant. I'll be more careful to use the language the church normally uses in such matters.

By Holy Tradition, the Sacrament of the Eucharist can only be taken by a Communicant of the Church. Of course I can take it. I'm required to take it because I'm a Communicant of the Church.  The Church actually has a register of Communicants and my name is in it.  If you are ex-communicated, you will no longer be a Communicant and you will defile the Sacrament if you take it.  Nothing sinister in what I said and it was really not intended to offend.

I wasn't offended, I was wondering what one would be defiling, how one could defile it and what "defile" means to you, because it sounded like it was important, as if something actually happens, as if it was ruined for the rest, etc. - but if it's nothing more than a cultural ritual with no magical component, how could it be? What are the consequences?

Also, again, what country are you from? I'd like to fact check your info.

[Johan]

Of course. It's the same with any culture from any part of the world. It's ancient and ancient folks were superstitious. Are you saying that because religion has a superstitious origin, we must flee it today?

No. What is being is that you don't become a Christian just because you show up every sunday. An athiest that attends mass every week is still an atheist. A christian that never goes to church is still a christian. Its not about your attendance record, its about what you believe. In your own words, you do not believe that god exists. Case closed. We're done here.

[La Dolce Vita]

Secular or non-religious charities are NOT atheistic charities.  Let's get that straight. A lot of people who are in some of these groups are Christians. Christian charities are owned and run by the Church, pure and simple. Secular charities are run by people regardless of religious affiliation.  They are NOT atheistic charities. The paucity of atheistic charities makes it necessary for you to lump secular charities as if they were atheistic concerns but that's a mistake.

This is why you are confused. "Atheism" is not an ideology. It is not a creed. Atheists are just people who do not believe in a god, like yourself. As atheists are oppressed in many places of the world there are atheist organization to protect their rights, but aside from this, the "label" atheist has no value. Therefor your point makes no sense, and can even be seen as dishonest. Furthermore atheists can and do donate to christian charities as well.

[scroyle]

Right, so they work without religion or the notion of God. A charity in the name of 'atheism' is weird in itself. But as the monopoly of religion on charity breaks, which it has started to do in the West after the dark ages, secular organisations take their place. And they are without the bathwater. Without false authority. Without religious claims. Without the self-entitled rightousness and without the moral-guilt-trip or pressure. And their structure and infrastructure is used by both atheists as theists and deists alike.

Of course there are atheist groups. Nothing strange at all. And they do try to get some charity going although not quite so successfully. Secular Humanist Groups are usually (by their Constitutions) atheistic/agnostic in character. These groups are usually accepted as atheistic in nature. Religious people usually will stay clear of such groups. I don't know of a single orphanage or hospice run by Secular Humanist group while there are thousands upon thousands of charitable homes in a single country alone run by churches. Again, I'm not running down atheists. This is not an indication that they are bad or uncaring. No, they aren't. But it does go to show that it's not practical for a group of atheists to organise charity the way the church does it.

[La Dolce Vita]

Of course there are atheist groups. Nothing strange at all. And they do try to get some charity going although not quite so successfully. Secular Humanist Groups are usually (by their Constitutions) atheistic/agnostic in character. These groups are usually accepted as atheistic in nature. Religious people usually will stay clear of such groups. I don't know of a single orphanage or hospice run by Secular Humanist group while there are thousands upon thousands of charitable homes in a single country alone run by churches. Again, I'm not running down atheists. This is not an indication that they are bad or uncaring. No, they aren't. But it does go to show that it's not practical for a group of atheists to organise charity the way the church does it.

Humanism is not atheism, it just happens to be predominantly atheist/agnostic. There are atheist organizations doing charity work, specifically labeled as atheist rather than secular. One of the points of this seem to be to actually show that specifically atheist groups can do good, as a lot of people, particularly in countries where atheists are belittling/oppressed need to fight prejudices. I'd rather it was done in a secular fashion personally, because when you attach belief you limit the amount of people who can participate. Sad that Christians would stay clear of humanist charity because they connect it to those evil, evil atheists. Humanism is secular as well however. They are not holding charity ransom demanding belief in "atheism", nor is any specific atheistic organization as far as I'm aware.

[Mr.Obvious]

Of course there are atheist groups. Nothing strange at all. And they do try to get some charity going although not quite so successfully. Secular Humanist Groups are usually (by their Constitutions) atheistic/agnostic in character. These groups are usually accepted as atheistic in nature. Religious people usually will stay clear of such groups. I don't know of a single orphanage or hospice run by Secular Humanist group while there are thousands upon thousands of charitable homes in a single country alone run by churches. Again, I'm not running down atheists. This is not an indication that they are bad or uncaring. No, they aren't. But it does go to show that it's not practical for a group of atheists to organise charity the way the church does it.

orphanage: orphan coalition (orphancoalition.org)
hospice: ninos de la luna
Now you do know. (About two minutes of research online.)

And you're confusing me. Are you now saying that secular organizations are atheist organizations, because you were the one saying they weren't. Not trying to be funny, you're just not making sense to me.

And we know you're not running down atheists like you and me. You've been saying so this entire time. But you are also concluding atheists are inept at organizing charity for completely bad and flawed reasons that you just don't accept being bad and flawed reasons. Though I and many others here have pointed them out again and again.

[scroyle]

Humanism is not atheism, it just happens to be predominantly atheist/agnostic. There are atheist organizations doing charity work, specifically labeled as atheist rather than secular. One of the points of this seem to be to actually show that specifically atheist groups can do good, as a lot of people, particularly in countries where atheists are belittling/oppressed need to fight prejudices. I'd rather it was done in a secular fashion personally, because when you attach belief you limit the amount of people who can participate. Sad that Christians would stay clear of humanist charity because they connect it to those evil, evil atheists. Humanism is secular as well however. They are not holding charity ransom demanding belief in "atheism", nor is any specific atheistic organization as far as I'm aware.

I don't know about other Christians or whether they do help out in humanist groups. But for me personally, whenever I donate money to a charity, I would choose a Christian charity even if it's not one by my Church specifically. I do that not because I consider atheists evil. I certainly don't. I don't believe any Christian is that stupid and nasty as to consider atheists evil. I give to a Christian group only because I'm more familiar with Christian groups. Besides, Christian charities always benefit humanity as a whole and they're not like the Muslim charities I know in this particular country I'm living in now that only bother about helping other Muslims. I'm familiar with Christianity and I know Christian groups don't discriminate against non-Christian people who deserve the charity. It's not wrong to give to a group that you are familiar with and you can be more certain about their objectives (eg non-sectarian). That's all.

[Sargon The Grape]

I don't believe any Christian is that stupid and nasty as to consider atheists evil.

[stromboli]

I gave up, HB. Don't think Scroyle has a full grasp of what he is talking about.