I’d always heard people like that referred to as lapsed <insert religion here>. Or is that for people who have stopped adhering to the faith entirely where a non-practicing person is someone who would still largely believe the scripture, chapter and verse, but has stopped actively and outwardly observing things like prayer?
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
sometimes that means a lack of belief too, just to make things more complicated. Like being raised in a religion but growing out of it without much thought.
I've only ever heard 'lapsed' before Catholic. But maybe people can be lapsed other things. The ways we refer to wretched apostasy are varied across cultures.
Lapsed Amazon Prime and lapsed Catholicism are pretty much the same thing in my view.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,549
- 3,064
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
It is usually people who still do believe in what they think is the core of the religion but have stopped believing that the rituals are particularly relevant and thus stop doing them. For example one might ask what the purpose of prayer is when the god is all knowing and thus already knows anything you might want to say and won't be persuaded of anything because his decisions are already perfect ?
In many religions the actions are primarily symbolic not with inherent power. And people might decide they don't really need the symbols.
Let's try your imaginative linguistic approach elsewhere. A menu says the chow mein comes with beef or chicken. Would you say that menu is ambiguous about whether the chow mein must come with beef?
No.
Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
My definition would not indicate that. If you believe in the Catholic faith, you believe in all sorts of moral obligations. Claiming those obligations even without fulfilling them is still a religious action, an acceptance of fealty to a higher power, and you would undoubtedly believe yourself to be sinning in your failure to keep those obligations.
And if you renounce the Catholic faith, and decide none of that crap should apply to you, but continue to believe in Jesus, that doesn't make you still Catholic.
You understand that your logic now would equally assert that religion does not require belief either, correct? If "or" means we can focus on half and disregard the other, the half you are focused on can be equally disregarded.
If we take your statement that religion was always about belief, in your analogy it would be like saying "chinese food was always about chicken", and then supporting that claim with beef being optional on the menu. It looks rather silly, Silvanus.
Then we agree. What are you even arguing about?
...except that I was pointing out the implications of that definition you posted, rather than offering my own formulation. In that definition-- #5 of the 6 you posted-- its indeed true that neither belief nor practice are given as requirements. That definition is clearly written to be exceptionally broad.
I would disagree with it! But hey, it's one you posted, so that ain't on me.
You have ascribed a specific requirement which I dispute.
candace owens simps for hitler so hard she forgets pearl harbour exists and a gbnews tosser even has to call it out oh dear america really ain't sending their best
Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion.[1] However, religion is a highly contested term with scholars such as Russell McCutcheon arguing that the term "religion" is used as a way to name a "seemingly distinct domain of diverse items of human activity and production".[7] The field of religious studies cannot even agree on one definition for religion and since spirituality overlaps with it in many ways it is difficult to reach a consensus for a definition for spirituality as well.[8][note 1]Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia
So, are you you really that surprised that other people use the terms differently if even scholars can not agree on a definition and tradition would have religion and spirituality used as synonyms ?
Sure. But you can totally believe that you are sinning. As every other human on earth is as well per catholic doctrine and decide to be fine with that.
You might also have your own opinion about which of the countless obligations are important and just do those that seem like common sense or moral to you anyway. I wouldn't automatically say that a catholic who doesn't have extramarital affairs or doesn't steal, murder or badmouth is "practicing the religion".
Last edited:
Why are you posting a study about what people think will happen? We have real world data across the globe of kids being in school and not sparking covid infections. You do realize all the other countries opened up schools after running actual real world studies showing no increase in covid spread with schools open. That is following the actual science, the rest of the world did it. Whereas we have data showing kids do drive flu infections but covid is not the flu. And if the US did all the things that actually reduce covid transmissions and followed the actual science, how'd the US do worse than all their peer countries?View attachment 11346
On the effect of age on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in households, schools and the community
There is limited information on the effect of age on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in different settings, including primary, secondary and high schools, households, and the whole community. We undertook a literature review of published studies/data ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Do you know any parents with kids? They're sick literally all the time, because their kids constantly get sick at school. Children spread disease like crazy. Yes, COVID affected kids under 10 less than anyone else, but that doesn't mean that kids wouldn't have been bringing COVID home with them and infecting others, especially kids over the age of 10.
Nor has anyone shown needy kids aren't getting food by the normal NSLP.
They haven't shown it to your satisfaction, but we also know that your criteria are impossible to meet.
You haven't shown me how needy kids are losing out on school lunches. The main issue with kids not getting food that are needy is schools that don't participate in the NSLP but if schools don't participate, they weren't able to get the pandemic school lunch additional policy anyway so getting rid of that is not pulling food off needy kids' plates.
Indeed, because if one uses a metric that automatically excludes anyone who doesn't get school lunches already, then it's impossible to do so.
Last edited:
Well, sort of correct: you were a lot less broad earlier, talking about obligation and the understanding that one was failing if they didn't fulfil it. Some very Catholic language, not very applicable to dozens of other religions, both historic and modern.
But I'd say that belief alone isn't quite enough, whereas action (in the sense of practical, physical expression) isn't required.
She's eager to prove she's a good little doggie, so that when the facists take over she won't be taken out back because of her skin colour.
She will be.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,549
- 3,064
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
One can believe and follow all of those same moral obligations without being a Catholic, being a Christian, or being religious at all. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality.
One can do all the same things, but you cannot follow the moral obligations of the Catholic Church without being a member of the Catholic Church, since you wouldn't be obligated. It's not following an obligation if you aren't obligated. I by no means suggested that religion has a monopoly on morality.
What is neither belief nor action?