[Todd D.]

Aborting a baby isn't simply "faltering" if you're Roman Catholic. It's murder.

And denying Christ isn't simply "faltering", it's blasphemy...yet the first Pope did it three times. Nobody would say that Peter wasn't a Christian, right?

If what you're saying is that you can't BELIEVE something that Catholicism holds to be true on the core issues, commonly referred to as "Cafeteria Catholicism", then I'd agree with you. What I object to is the idea that if you make a mistake, you're suddenly not a Catholic anymore. That's simply the opposite of what the faith teaches.

[QatzelOk]

And denying Christ isn't simply "faltering", it's blasphemy...yet the first Pope did it three times.

Like the word "being," you have taken the word "denying" to means something that's convenient for the ideology you currently follow.

But you can't really say that you "are" this ideology. It has nothing to do with you. It was created long before you were born, and probably be around long after you have changed ideologies, or have left the land of the living.

Even the pope can't really say that he "is" Roman Catholicism because Catholicism was around - being itself - long before the purple smoke elected him.

Catholicism is a text. The pope is a human being. Human beings aren't texts. Nature and Mental abstractions are very different things.

I think the "Jesus as man/God" has confused the difference between these two concepts. Perhaps the "son of God" meme is a horrible act of cognitive pollution.

[Lucky Strike]

Catholicism is a text.

No, it's a religion. The Bible is a text (or collection of texts, to be more accurate). To be Catholic means to be a member of the Catholic community who believes in and practices the Catholic faith. No amount of ridiculous logic-chopping and equivocation on your part is going to change that.

[QatzelOk]

To be Catholic means to be a member of the Catholic community who believes in and practices the Catholic faith.

Every word of this sentence is empty rhetoric except the words "practices the faith," which means "follows."

Keep arguing like this and I will have won the thread in no time.

[Vigil of Reason]

"practices the faith," which means "follows."

It seems like you have no problem with people saying "practicing the faith", even when it really means "follow". So why do you have any problem with people saying they "are", when it really means "follow"? As I said, this is a semantics issue.

[Todd D.]

But you can't really say that you "are" this ideology.

I never did. I never said "I am Catholicism", but I did say that I am "Catholic". "Catholic" is a member of the Catholic Church, a believer in the Catholic faith. "Catholicism" is the system of beliefs themselves.

Every word of this sentence is empty rhetoric except the words "practices the faith," which means "follows."

No, it doesn't. It means "Believes". "Follows" should stem from that belief, but not 100% of the time, and certainly not flawlessly. You can believe something while still falling short of the ideal in your everyday life. Again, inside of Christianity, this is not only acceptable, it's guaranteed.

[QatzelOk]

Todd, you can argue about what it means to "be" a Christian or a Jew, but I will never believe that a person's identity is changed by saying a few words.

Saying you "are" Catholic is like saying you "are" Star Trek. Maybe you follow the show, and learn a great deal from the themes the text explores, but you can never be part of that original text. You can only follow it.

To "believe" it is just to say you get a warm feeling when you hear it. It's pretty useless to "believe" in a text if you don't follow it.

Once again, people say they "believe" or they "are" a text because they don't really follow it. These words "I believe it," and "I am it" are both ways of avoiding the only important part of the relationship, which is to follow it.

You are NOT any text. And that you "believe" a text isn't really important, except if it means that you follow it.

How does one get to "be" Jewish? By having the correct family history? This is like saying you're a Crip or a Blood.

What does "I believe in God" mean? That you're afraid to say anything else for superstitious reasons? It's like saying "I believe in capitalism." It means nothing at all except that you think you might win something by repeating a magical sentence about "belief."

[Vigil of Reason]

To "believe" it is just to say you get a warm feeling when you hear it. It's pretty useless to "believe" in a text if you don't follow it.

I do not think so. Some texts (following that you still think all religions are texts) require the belief in something. In this sense, the belief is a subset of the text. And again, no one says he is a text, because no one says he is Catholicism. And when some one says he believes in something it means he believes in something.

Saying you "are" Catholic is like saying you "are" Star Trek.

Saying you are Catholic is like saying you are a follower of Star Trek.

[Godstud]

If you were a follow of Star Trek you would be a "Trekkie".

It's just a way of saying things, and there is no deep meaning behind it.

[Vigil of Reason]

If you were a follow of Star Trek you would be a "Trekkie".

Yes. Star Trek is to Catholicism as Trekkie is to Catholic.

[Todd D.]

Todd, you can argue about what it means to "be" a Christian or a Jew, but I will never believe that a person's identity is changed by saying a few words.

Saying you "are" Catholic is like saying you "are" Star Trek. Maybe you follow the show, and learn a great deal from the themes the text explores, but you can never be part of that original text. You can only follow it.

"Star Trek" is a proper noun, an actual "thing". "Catholic" is a person who believes the tenets of Catholicism. So no, saying that you are "Catholic" is not like saying you are "Star Trek". Saying you are Catholic is saying that you are a member of the Catholic Church and a believer in Catholicism.

To "believe" it is just to say you get a warm feeling when you hear it.

No it's not. To "believe" it means that you hold to it as truth.

It's pretty useless to "believe" in a text if you don't follow it.

If you add "strive to" before "follow", then I'm right with you.

I'm not suggesting that what you do doesn't matter, or that your ultimate goal shouldn't be to "follow". What I'm saying is that falling short of the ideal doesn't indicate that you no longer hold to that ideal.

Once again, people say they "believe" or they "are" a text because they don't really follow it. These words "I believe it," and "I am it" are both ways of avoiding the only important part of the relationship, which is to follow it.

Again though, if you're railing against people who claim a faith with words rather than actions, you won't get a disagreement from me. However, it's not appropriate to separate 'believing it' with 'following it' because, at least with Christianity, you literally can not do one without the other.

What does "I believe in God" mean? That you're afraid to say anything else for superstitious reasons? It's like saying "I believe in capitalism." It means nothing at all except that you think you might win something by repeating a magical sentence about "belief."

Right, but that's not what you said that I took issue with. What you said was "When a person gets an abortion, she is NOT following Roman Catholicism. For her to say 'I'm Catholic' makes no sense." which I said wasn't "necessarily true", though it very well might be. It might be that she claims to be Catholic, but believes Abortion is an acceptable method of birth control, doesn't believe Christ was God, etc. etc. For that example, saying "I'm Catholic" would not make sense, I agree with you.

However, let's say that say that a 17 year old girl IS a practicing Catholic. She gets pregnant, gets scared, and in haste gets an abortion. She regrets it afterwards, knows that what she did was wrong, and confesses her sins to a priest. For her, despite making a mistake, it is perfectly acceptable for her to say "I am Catholic", because her sin (while serious) was not one that separated her from the faith.

[QatzelOk]

If you're not willing to follow an ideological leader, whether textual or living, then your commitment to a particular ideology (or philosophical stance) is extremely questionable.

People say they "are" or they "believe" a particular text because this avoids actually having to change their lifestyles around it.

"I am Catholic" means "I want to be treated like a follower of Catholicism." But it doesn't mean the person speaking is in any way affected behavior-wise by those texts.

The notion of a "secular Catholic" is pathetic. It removes all the meaning of the word "Catholic" and replaces its original meaning with a position on a caste system. Likewise, an person who claims to be a "non-active athlete" or a "motionless mover."

Empty labels don't contribute anything to the human experience. They just serve as empty signifiers for entitlement and social standing.

[Todd D.]

People say they "are" or they "believe" a particular text because this avoids actually having to change their lifestyles around it.

Some might, but I don't know on what you are basing the notion that this extends to ALL believers who identify as Christian or Catholic.

"I am Catholic" means "I want to be treated like a follower of Catholicism."

No, it means "I identify as a member of the Catholic Church" and / or "I believe in the tenets of Catholicism"

But it doesn't mean the person speaking is in any way affected behavior-wise by those texts.

Not by itself, no.

The notion of a "secular Catholic" is pathetic.

There are cultural aspects of Catholicism that can be identified with, such as a family tradition of not eating meat on Fridays, or having a Quinceñera (which has no theological basis), but in general, I agree with you.

However, a "secular Catholic" is not what you described originally, or what I was referring to. Faltering in the pursuit of perfection does not mean that you have stopped pursuing it, nor does someone sinning mean that they have abandoned their Catholic faith on the whole. A Catholic who sins momentarily is not the same thing as an explicit rejection of the Catholic faith.

Empty labels don't contribute anything to the human experience. They just serve as empty signifiers for entitlement and social standing.

Again, why are you assuming that all those who label themselves "Catholic" are, in your terms, "Secular Catholics"?

[QatzelOk]

God to humans: "Follow what I say, or don't invoke my name.

I hate shallow name-droppers."