Thread: What is the appeal of Christianity? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023951
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Suppose teaching about what happens after death is taken out of its theology, what then is the appeal of Christianity to the ‘man in the street’?
Can anyone explain this? I have had to ditch my conventional understanding because I can no longer hold a set of ‘beliefs’ as a ticket to a happy heaven.
I am also convinced that the Church will have to do the same.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Without those teachings Christianity is nothing.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Are there any teachings about what happens after death?
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I think the problem with doing that is you then end up with something very like humanism which is very nice as an attractive system of morals but which has no actual appeal beyond that.
My answer to you personally, if I am understanding you correctly, is that I too found myself in a place where the theology no longer made intellectual sense to me and I rejected it. It took me a further six years to set foot in a church again when I finally began to suspect that I'd missed the point.
For me, Christianity isn't about accepting a set of logical propostions as factually true in order to obtain a desired outcome. It's about a distinctive and profound understanding of and relationship with the divine.
You absolutely cannot scrub Christianity clean of anything irrational and still call the thing you have at the end Christianity. The whole point of Christ was that he defied the rational.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
For a religion supposedly all about the next life, its effect on this life seems to have been salutary for most of us.
I suppose the Resurrection is important because it "proves" something, but it is interesting to note that after Christ arose, He showed Himself mostly to those who already loved Him, to whom He didn't need to prove anything to earn their devotion.
[ 12. October 2012, 20:14: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Sorry (again)... How is it "all about the next life"?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Well I suppose you could argue it is something to believe in. Did the first hearers of the Christ understand his words to be about eternal life - or something else? An open question, in my view.
I suspect many saw him as a prophet in the line of John the Baptist and so it would be natural to see his words as offering a practical belief system for behaviour in the here-and-now. The question for you is then whether it makes any sense to read the bible in this way and whether as a moral code it has any weight for you. Others have lived it in this way - including Jefferson, Tolstoy and Gandhi. Maybe you should see what they made of it.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
If you are called you follow.
If it's not your heart's desire then Christianity isn't for you. But be aware that other treasures don't last and don't give the same sense of satisfaction.
It's a hard road and not for everyone. You have to take up a cross.
Don't think of becoming a Christian unless you are prepared to pay the cost.
[ 12. October 2012, 20:30: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well I suppose you could argue it is something to believe in. Did the first hearers of the Christ understand his words to be about eternal life - or something else? An open question, in my view.
I suspect many saw him as a prophet in the line of John the Baptist and so it would be natural to see his words as offering a practical belief system for behaviour in the here-and-now. The question for you is then whether it makes any sense to read the bible in this way and whether as a moral code it has any weight for you. Others have lived it in this way - including Jefferson, Tolstoy and Gandhi. Maybe you should see what they made of it.
Not seeing the issue. Sorry. No doubt my stupidity...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sorry (again)... How is it "all about the next life"?
It's not that it's all about the next life. The next life isn't actually mentioned that much.
But apart from a focus on enduring goodness, with a point and a purpose to the whole system, Christianity falls flat. It is just humanism.
So subtracting the eternal from the equation vitiates the whole purpose of Christianity.
Certainly love, faith, and a life of service for the sake of our friends, family and society in general are the true ingredients of Christianity. They could theoretically be there and reform the world with no mention of anything eternal or even supernatural.
Without an eternal God and an eternal purpose for the human race, though, I don't believe it is meaningful.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I am not a Christian because I find Christianity to be appealing. I am a Christian because I think it is true.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Suppose teaching about what happens after death is taken out of its theology, what then is the appeal of Christianity to the ‘man in the street’?
There is none. Without the concept of eternal reward/punishment Christianity is just one more over-earnest pollyanna telling everyone to play nice.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
This seems a very intellectual approach to me. I grew up in a totally atheist family, and had a Catholic girl-friend when I was 16, and went with her to Mass, for the first time in my life, and it totally blew me away. Well, I've spend the last 50 years trying to understand that, and still being blown away by the Eucharist. So I don't see it in such intellectual terms as the thread-setter. I don't know whether it's 'true' or not, but it sure moves me.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I'm surprised at the replies so far which imply that without the promise of an afterlife Christianity would be just a beneficial lifestyle choice.
Surely Christianity is about a living relationship with God through Christ in this life as well as after death? If taking away the latter, the former still applies.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely Christianity is about a living relationship with God through Christ in this life as well as after death? If taking away the latter, the former still applies.
This. Christianity is about this life. I do the things I do in this life because I love God and believe his word is true. I hope for the next life, but even if the next life were removed, I'd still live in relationship with God in this life.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Certainly love, faith, and a life of service for the sake of our friends, family and society in general are the true ingredients of Christianity. They could theoretically be there and reform the world with no mention of anything eternal or even supernatural.
Without an eternal God and an eternal purpose for the human race, though, I don't believe it is meaningful.
Why is an eternal purpose important? And whatever that purpose is, what happens when it has been achieved? Does anyone say, "Well that was great but what did achieving it achieve?. Why was it so important?". Or is it just another case of "It's a mystery. You have to believe and wait for eternity to find out."
Are you saying that feeding the hungry, protecting the widows and orphans etc are pointless without eternal life?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Are you saying that feeding the hungry, protecting the widows and orphans etc are pointless without eternal life?
Not at all. I'm just saying that Christianity is about enduring value. If it doesn't really endure, and if we will all just disappear in a few years, the value is pale by comparison.
It is not worthless or pointless, it is just less appealing than the idea of these things contributing to an eternal kingdom that we all take part in - not just now but forever.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Without those teachings Christianity is nothing.
Really? What about 'My God i love thee, not because i hope for heaven thereby.'?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
What is the appeal of Christianity?
Is that really the right question?
What about...
What is the appeal of Christ?
I am not interested in Christianity, in the sense of an ideology to which I must conform. That is a naturalistic idea. I am far more interested in the reality, of which Christianity is just a pale - and often confused - reflection.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Suppose teaching about what happens after death is taken out of its theology, what then is the appeal of Christianity to the ‘man in the street’?
You are loved.
You. Yes you. Not you in a vague generalized sense like we might say "I love cats" or "I love hamburgers." You. Personally.
Are. Not were back in some past when you were still cute and innocent. Not will be in some vague future if you get it right. Are. Now.
Loved. Period. No conditions, nothing you did to deserve it, nothing you can do to change it. No limitations. Just loved.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Unless you are LGBT - saith the Anglican Communion and the RCC.
LGBTs are not loved. They are going to Hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect £200.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It's Jesus.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Without those teachings Christianity is nothing.
Really? What about 'My God i love thee, not because i hope for heaven thereby.'?
Yes, that's important. It's not that it's all about the next life. The next life isn't actually mentioned that much.
But apart from a focus on enduring goodness, with a point and a purpose to the whole system, Christianity falls flat. It is just humanism.
So subtracting the eternal from the equation vitiates the whole purpose of Christianity.
Certainly love, faith, and a life of service for the sake of our friends, family and society in general are the true ingredients of Christianity. They could theoretically be there and reform the world with no mention of anything eternal or even supernatural.
Without an eternal God and an eternal purpose for the human race, though, I don't believe it is meaningful.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Unless you are LGBT - saith the Anglican Communion and the RCC.
LGBTs are not loved. They are going to Hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect £200.
Never confuse what an institutional church teaches with what God thinks. Sometimes the churches get it right. Sometimes they don't. Our primary focus needs to be God, then figure out what if any secondary role the institutional church reasonably might have in our lives.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But apart from a focus on enduring goodness, with a point and a purpose to the whole system, Christianity falls flat. It is just humanism.
So subtracting the eternal from the equation vitiates the whole purpose of Christianity.
Certainly love, faith, and a life of service for the sake of our friends, family and society in general are the true ingredients of Christianity. They could theoretically be there and reform the world with no mention of anything eternal or even supernatural.
Without an eternal God and an eternal purpose for the human race, though, I don't believe it is meaningful.
I don't agree that it falls flat and has no purpose without the idea of eternity. God remains who God is, whether or not we see one of God's traits as eternal. What if God's purpose for us is to help build the Kingdom of God in the world now, rather than it being something to happen in the future?
Do you really think that the Kingdom equates to nothing more than a 'humanist' society in which people look out for each other and love their families?
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Unless you are LGBT - saith the Anglican Communion and the RCC.
LGBTs are not loved. They are going to Hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect £200.
Bollocks...and you know it.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
I guess I see it in terms of the progress of humanity as a whole. We are learning, as a species, to be more Christ like, and with each generation, we become just a bit more so.
So in a sense, yes, it is just a moral code, but so what? I honestly don't see why that would be a problem, provided we don't put the focus on ourselves, either as a species or as individuals.
I don't see the point of Christianity as being about accepting Christ in and of itself, but as becoming more Christ like. If we were able to do that without ever having heard of Jesus, then great.
I suppose one might see it not as individual salvation at the end af a single human life, but as corporate salvation over time.
Mind, you, I DO personally believe in individual salvation, but I don't see that this is so central to Christianity that the faith looses all meaning without it.
Also, though, what Mousethief said...it's not about "appeal" it's about belief.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Unless you are LGBT - saith the Anglican Communion and the RCC.
LGBTs are not loved. They are going to Hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect £200.
Bollocks...and you know it.
No - just listen to the testimonies of many LGBTs about the frosty receptions they have received, sometimes enforced exorcisms, often refusal of Holy Communion.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Unless you are LGBT - saith the Anglican Communion and the RCC.
LGBTs are not loved. They are going to Hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect £200.
Bollocks...and you know it.
No - just listen to the testimonies of many LGBTs about the frosty receptions they have received, sometimes enforced exorcisms, often refusal of Holy Communion.
That happens to any out-group; blacks in segregated USA South who approached a white church, for example. It's not about God, it's about deep flaws in society and pretending the flaws reflect God's values.
Never confuse those who claim to speak for God with what God actually speaks.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
But I don't think the white churches said that the blacks were going to Hell.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What if God's purpose for us is to help build the Kingdom of God in the world now, rather than it being something to happen in the future?
But I agree that God's purpose for us is to help build the Kingdom of God in the world now. I just think that if continued participation of each individual in that effort does not last, then it is a pale shadow of what it is when it is envisioned as lasting forever.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Do you really think that the Kingdom equates to nothing more than a 'humanist' society in which people look out for each other and love their families?
Not if those involved in it love God and seek to do His will.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But I don't think the white churches said that the blacks were going to Hell.
Some said blacks were animals and lacked souls.
a discussion
But the bigger point is, you are probably not going to change the Roman Catholic or any other church denomination, so why pay them any attention? No matter who any of us are, someone thinks we are pretty awful and probably going to hell.
"Women are the source of all sin" -- boy have I heard that one often -- I don't go to those churches. I'm not going to change their minds, so the best way for me to live a healthy life is to ignore them and laugh in amusement at the silly joke if I do get "confronted" with it.
Life's too short to go around feeling abused by stupid statements from churches. "Love your enemies" and "forgive" and all that doesn't mean agree with them, it means (among other things) be kind to your own blood pressure.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
I believe/trust because that's just the way it is to me.
I think it's true, but there is a hell of a lot of stuff I don't know about, so I don't ask anyone to take my word for it. Sometimes I don't think there is a God, but I seem to go on trusting despite that.
I don't know much about an afterlife. Does anyone? It is a minuscule element of my my belief.
If you think it's a get out of Hell free card you've got the wrong end of the handle IMO. To provoke, I'd go so far as to say that Hell is only for Christians. Other don't need to worry about it.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
If the appeal were really what a few of you state, I better pack up my life and take an early exit to oblivion, hell or other places less tormenting that worldly life has been these past 6 years, with a horrible acceleration these past 2 years.
For people truly questioning, either before giving Christianity a whirl or after finding out we're stopping the whirling because we're really effing dizzy, trite answers along the lines of "it's meaningless without resurrection" have zero value. Or maybe negative values. Like —1,000,000. Up the resurrection.
I know there are many like me who are so screwed over by God, by faith, by Jesus, by the holy spirit or whatever, that we can only find appeal in notions like Puddleglum's. (I'm a whole lot less confident and no where near as bold as he was, but I'll continue with Christianity because the alternative is even worse thank you very much.)
quote:
From CS Lewis' book "The Silver Chair":
Puddleglum: Suppose... suppose we have only dreamed and made up these things like sun, sky, stars, and moon, and Aslan himself. In that case, it seems to me that the made-up things are a good deal better than the real ones. And if this black pits of a kingdom is the best you can make, then it's a poor world. And we four can make a dream world to lick your real one hollow.
Green Lady: How dare you threaten me!
Puddleglum: As for me, I shall live like a Narnian even if there isn't any Narnia. So thank you very much for supper. We're going to leave your court at once and make our way across your great darkness to search for our land above!
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
I'd say that you should go where your heart leads you.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Suppose teaching about what happens after death is taken out of its theology, what then is the appeal of Christianity to the ‘man in the street’?
As one of the resident atheists here, I'd say that it is becoming less and less appealing to the man in the street! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This is especially so when he sees the damage that religious conflicts* are causing all over the world, and to which information he has instant access.
*The [phrase 'religious conflicts' will be picked up if I don't add that it is of course people who cause conflicts, whether or not they base their motive on their religious beliefs.
quote:
Can anyone explain this? I have had to ditch my conventional understanding because I can no longer hold a set of ‘beliefs’ as a ticket to a happy heaven.
Much of the reason must be that factual information about the universe, from the smallest particle to the farthest reaches of space, has replaced the Goddidit answer with understanding of how things really work. Supposed events such as virgin birth and resurrection are set against our understanding of biology and, in my strongly held opinion, fail completely.
Here (in UK) the CofE remains a backdrop for state events etc - and I would point out here that I would support this status quo at present because there isn't a strong enough , humanist, alternative ready to take over the duties of such a backdrop - but the subject of atheism is no longer a taboo subject as it was when I was young, when it was the height of bad manners to question people's beliefs.
quote:
I am also convinced that the Church will have to do the same.
My ideal scenario would be for the CofE to retain the community support, the organisation with regular meetings including music and thoughts, but remove all the supernatural bits!
May I please recommend that you investigate the BHA anda local Humanist Group, if you have one anywhere in your area. The group I belong to has an expanding membership and regular meetings with good speakers. It would be lovely if we had a rousing song too!
Having long ago realised that there is no pre- or after-life, I am doing everything I can to live this only one in the very best way I can.
Freddy
quote:
... Christianity falls flat. It is just humanism.
I quibble strongly with the word 'just'!! Humanism is what all decent humans do, and have done since our species began, but a God/god idea has been added to it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely Christianity is about a living relationship with God through Christ in this life as well as after death?
Maybe for you. Not all of us have that experience.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Freddy
quote:
... Christianity falls flat. It is just humanism.
I quibble strongly with the word 'just'!! Humanism is what all decent humans do, and have done since our species began, but a God/god idea has been added to it.
Hence your quibble.
I think your message illustrates that no afterlife implies no God, nothing supernatural, no Bible, and no religion. Others will disagree, but I think that is what it actually means.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Suppose teaching about what happens after death is taken out of its theology, what then is the appeal of Christianity to the ‘man in the in street'
Joy unspeakable and full of glory. 1 Peter 1:8 happens. It happens lots.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely Christianity is about a living relationship with God through Christ in this life as well as after death?
Maybe for you. Not all of us have that experience.
One has as much experience of God as one desires. And sometimes protracted periods of time without experience are a necessary stimulant to our desire. Or, on the other hand, they might simply be evidence that our God-concept is fatally flawed and in need of reformation.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Hence your quibble.
I think your message illustrates that no afterlife implies no God, nothing supernatural, no Bible, and no religion. Others will disagree, but I think that is what it actually means.
Yes. However, there is a Bible, i.e. a collection of writings by various people from their own ideas created in their evolved brains. There are other books of other religions too of course and the word 'holy' is applied to them; another word which I think should be redefined to remove its link with God/god/s or to make it clear that although the word had mystic connections. These have now been replaced by scientific answers. I do realise this won't happen in my lifetime though, but my optimism remains!
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I'm surprised at the replies so far which imply that without the promise of an afterlife Christianity would be just a beneficial lifestyle choice.
Surely Christianity is about a living relationship with God through Christ in this life as well as after death? If taking away the latter, the former still applies.
Exactly! Christianity isn't fundamentally a moral system (though it includes that), but about knowing and delighting in the good God who made us for Himself.
But that said, that Christianity is about an eternal hope, not just this lifetime, is a vital part both of its truth and "appeal".
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely Christianity is about a living relationship with God through Christ in this life as well as after death?
Maybe for you. Not all of us have that experience.
For some it's an indirect relationship eg by way of the scriptures and/or the Church rather than by direct experience, but the living relationship is what Christianity is about imv.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris: the word 'holy' is applied to them; another word which I think should be redefined to remove its link with God/god/s
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Why not use another word rather than try to change the meaning of the existing one? Is it all part of the grand plan to try to erase any mention of God from people's lives?
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
quote:
Macrina
………..I too found myself in a place where the theology no longer made intellectual sense to me and I rejected it…………
quote:
quetzalcoatl
So I don't see it in such intellectual terms as the thread-setter.
Rather than get myself analysed, I am trying to see how Christianity can regain its appeal in the western world.
Telling people God loves them and they can have their sins forgiven does not seem to attract people any more. (I must admit that I am not quite sure what Jesus meant by “those that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick” - it could be that he didn’t expect many to be disciples.)
I agree with the general opinion that without the belief that death is followed by resurrection, Christianity just becomes a life style. It would then be as St. Paul put it, “we of all people, are most to be pitied”.
Teaching about what happens after death is almost the definition of a religion and it is probable that death arouses the most questions about spiritual things. Atheists have nothing to say here.
Christianity seems to be pretty confused. Goodness only knows how ministers reconcile their creed with comforting the majority of the bereaved.
I feel that it is enough for Christians just to teach that life is eternal and all will take part in a resurrection after death. All the stuff about heaven and hell should be junked until we are less confused about it.
I wondered if this would make the salvation of this life through a relationship with a Christ-like God more attractive. Plenty seem to need help through personal crises and family breakdown.
Regarding my ditching of conventional beliefs - perhaps in other threads.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
However, there is a Bible, i.e. a collection of writings by various people from their own ideas created in their evolved brains.
Presumably this is just an unsubstantiated subjective opinion you happen to hold?
If not, then where's the supporting evidence?
I tend to be of the view that atheist assertions per se don't actually count as evidence, scientific or otherwise.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I am trying to see how Christianity can regain its appeal in the western world.
If this is what you're after, then the only question you need to answer is:
What's in it for me?
What is Christianity actually offering people in this life? Is it something they actually want, or is it a hard life of service to others and self-denial?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
One has as much experience of God as one desires.
I call bullshit. How would you know this? I know many people who would like to have an experience of God but who do not. This is your theology overriding the observed facts.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
What is Christianity actually offering people in this life? Is it something they actually want, or is it a hard life of service to others and self-denial?
Well, Christianity might offer a lot of conformity to institutional expectations, but Christ offers an easy life of service to others, rather than a hard life of extremely tedious and depressing self-obsession.
"It is more blessed to give than to receive."
As for whether people want what Christ offers: no, many people do not want it, to their loss.
As for 'self-denial'... I guess Christianity isn't the only ideology that thinks personal discipline is quite a good thing. Unbridled self-gratification has, I suggest, made a great many people deeply unhappy. Do feel free to disagree with me...
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I think I've messed up the quotes slightly at one point, but can't work out how. My apologies.
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
But that said, that Christianity is about an eternal hope, not just this lifetime, is a vital part both of its truth and "appeal".
However, with demand for, and the ability to find, evidence of claims there is a considerable change in the Christian Church's position and, in my opinion, rightly so.
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
So I don't see it in such intellectual terms as the thread-setter.
Rather than get myself analysed, I am trying to see how Christianity can regain its appeal in the western world.
I think that without the facts which would obviate the need for faith, then how can Christianity be better than the scientific reality which can be accessed on TV, radio and the internet? Those who prefer to have faith that God and Jesus are providing support are underestimating the power, strength and resourcefulness , as well as the imagination, of our human evolved brains. It is always human support whatever the beliefs of a comforting person, or the person him/herself when alone.
quote:
Telling people God loves them and they can have their sins forgiven does not seem to attract people any more.
Well, why would it? If they ask, 'Is that true?' the answer cannot be 'yes'. It might be a comforting thought, but since the events of the everyday world never show any god
stepping in to save any murder victim, saying, 'god moves in mysterious ways,' or something is not going to help. Okay, the 'comforting' thought about a 'living god' and a 'living Jesus' has been around for such a long time that for it to become a far more minority view, to be replaced by the understanding that it is all human, is going to take a very long time. And again, I suppose I have to admit - rightly so.
quote:
Teaching about what happens after death is almost the definition of a religion and it is probable that death arouses the most questions about spiritual things. Atheists have nothing to say here.
*splutter, shock, horror* Hmmmmm!!! The word 'spiritual' applies to aspects of every single person's life. Why would you think that an atheist cannot be 'spiritual'? This word cannot be applied to religious belief only.
quote:
Christianity seems to be pretty confused. Goodness only knows how ministers reconcile their creed with comforting the majority of the bereaved.
Agree.
quote:
I feel that it is enough for Christians just to teach that life is eternal and all will take part in a resurrection after death.
A dear friend of mine died earlier this year. She firmly believed that she would go on to an eternal life and be reunited with her husband. That belief gave her great comfort and it was of course her absolute right to have such comfort. She used to worry a bit about my move hyears ago away from belief to atheism, but could see, after a friendship of 58 years, that I was still the same cheerful, happy optimist!!
quote:
I wondered if this would make the salvation of this life through a relationship with a Christ-like God more attractive. Plenty seem to need help through personal crises and family breakdown.
Yes, that is a very difficult one for everyone. Do you think they should then be assured that it will come from something for which they cannot be given proof, but only be told that this is something they should believe?
Thank you for the interest I have had this afternoon writing this post.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
One has as much experience of God as one desires.
I call bullshit. How would you know this? I know many people who would like to have an experience of God but who do not. This is your theology overriding the observed facts.
Psalm 37:4 contains the following exhortation and attendant promise: quote:
Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.
It would also be helpful if you didn't edit the nuances from my statements in order to manufacture straw men.
[ 15. October 2012, 16:45: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.
C. S. Lewis
And two of my favourite verses from the Bible:
quote:
Job 19:25-27
25 I know that my Redeemer[a] lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.[b]
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet[c] in[d] my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!
and
quote:
1 John 3:1-3
3 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.
This is the wonderful thing about Christianity - Jesus, and fellowship with God for eternity.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Maybe I wasn't clear in my prior post where I quoted CS Lewis' "Silver Chair". The after life and all the focus on it doesn't answer suffering in the present. In the now. In this world.
The immediate promise to some of us is only of a better current life, of something with integrity. The main problem with this in the general, societal case is that many alleged Christian lives show crappy lives without integrity, often dishonest and often deformed, and they often ignore the real problems and deep troubles people face, while they focus on other-worldly B.S. as a way of feeling good about being bad.
I suspect the tendency to focus on eternity, resurrection and all the miraculous stuff has a lot to do with Christianity's giving up of its role as the challenger to society and to the bad behaviour of its leaders and people, and marrying itself to political power.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
One has as much experience of God as one desires. And sometimes protracted periods of time without experience are a necessary stimulant to our desire.
Your 2nd sentence contradicts your first
Reminds me of Dylan's "Your debutante just knows what you need, But I know what you want." If you can see the connection.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Psalm 37:4 contains the following exhortation and attendant promise: quote:
Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.
I do believe the psalmist experienced this from time to time, but there are also more despairing passages, and the mixture is like my experience.
I think it debases the passage to read it as a formula for success, which is how it comes across, even if you did not intend it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, Christianity might offer a lot of conformity to institutional expectations, but Christ offers an easy life of service to others, rather than a hard life of extremely tedious and depressing self-obsession.
It depends on what one finds "easy" or "hard", I suppose. I don't doubt that there are those whose desires match perfectly with the teachings of Christianity, and for whom serving others comes easily.
quote:
As for 'self-denial'... I guess Christianity isn't the only ideology that thinks personal discipline is quite a good thing. Unbridled self-gratification has, I suggest, made a great many people deeply unhappy. Do feel free to disagree with me...
I shall
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Psalm 37:4 contains the following exhortation and attendant promise: quote:
Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.
I do believe the psalmist experienced this from time to time, but there are also more despairing passages, and the mixture is like my experience.
I think it debases the passage to read it as a formula for success, which is how it comes across, even if you did not intend it.
That'll be because the qualification contained in my original post, which was precisely designed in order to prevent such misapprehensions, was edited out for cheap convenience.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Teaching about what happens after death is almost the definition of a religion and it is probable that death arouses the most questions about spiritual things. Atheists have nothing to say here.
*splutter, shock, horror* Hmmmmm!!! The word 'spiritual' applies to aspects of every single person's life. Why would you think that an atheist cannot be 'spiritual'? This word cannot be applied to religious belief only.
I quite agree that everyone is spiritual. I think shadeson was saying that atheism has nothing to say about what happens after death, and not really that it could have nothing spiritual in life.
OTOH, I think it is a poor religion that is focused on the after-life; and I do not agree that religion is mostly teaching about what happens after death.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
One has as much experience of God as one desires. And sometimes protracted periods of time without experience are a necessary stimulant to our desire.
Your 2nd sentence contradicts your first.
I don't think it does. When your body needs water you experience a form of desire called thirst. Thirst is good only inasmuch as it indicates a need. It's the same with our need for God. Sometimes God will withhold himself from us precisely in order to make us thirst for him. Then, when he finally grants himself to us again, we take greater delight in him than we would in the context of unlimited supply.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Psalm 37:4 contains the following exhortation and attendant promise: quote:
Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.
I do believe the psalmist experienced this from time to time, but there are also more despairing passages, and the mixture is like my experience.
I think it debases the passage to read it as a formula for success, which is how it comes across, even if you did not intend it.
That'll be because the qualification contained in my original post, which was precisely designed in order to prevent such misapprehensions, was edited out for cheap convenience.
Looking back, I do not see any such qualification in the post I quoted from, nor in your previous post, and certainly nothing that would affect my comment on the Psalm verse. But if you can point it out, I'll reconsider.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
That won't be necessary. What's been said is fine.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
That's convenient ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Yes.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sorry (again)... How is it "all about the next life"?
Look, for instance, at the seven deadly sins and their opposite virtues, e.g. Pride vs. humility, anger vs. patience, lust vs. chastity, gluttony vs. temperance. In every case, submission and renunciation are the way to go. St. Paul's theology developed the theme of the atonement, which opened once again for us the door to paradise in the next world which had been locked since Adam. We were to spread the gospel primarily for this reason.
It is no accident that the Christian faith initially spread figuratively (and sometimes literally) underground, among slaves and the lower classes. It promised them the joys in the next world that they were being denied in this-- provided that they remained humble and content with their lot. It is also no accident that the Christian faith was derided at the same time by the aristocrats, who said that it was fit only for slaves.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris: I think I've messed up the quotes slightly
The second one includes what someone else said - not wrong enough to worry.
The misunderstanding is more serious:
quote:
Why would you think that an atheist cannot be 'spiritual'? This word cannot be applied to religious belief only
I actually said "it is probable that death arouses the most questions about spiritual things"
Perhaps I might have added "in peoples minds" because its an awkward subject in the 21st century.
quote:
Do you think they should then be assured that it will come from something for which they cannot be given proof, but only be told that this is something they can believe?
That was my deliberate misquote.
-----------------------------
Read Studdert Kennedy's poem "Faith" ........
"how can you prove a man who leads, to be a leader worth the following, unless you follow to the death"
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
From the top down I'm with Garasu first.
What's Christianity got to do with what happens after we die ? Why's it relevant ? God is the God of the living. It's about NOW.
Eternity will take care of itself.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Rather than get myself analysed, I am trying to see how Christianity can regain its appeal in the western world.
If Christianity doesn't appeal to the Western world, might it be the Western world that's at fault and not Christianity?
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Oh, Please. Not that old saw again, TR.
I do think that treating this life as some some sort of extended time in a Hogwarts Sorting Hat kind of misunderstands the Gospel.
[ 15. October 2012, 21:11: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
the tendency to focus on eternity, resurrection and all the miraculous stuff has a lot to do with Christianity's giving up of its role as the challenger to society and to the bad behaviour of its leaders and people, and marrying itself to political power.
I totally agree. My previous post ended too soon. We must go on to say that this wasn't the end of the story. The upshot has been that in Christendom, slavery has yielded to egalitarianism and democracy. Far from dismissing this world in favor of the next, the church actually takes it more seriously than do most religions.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
As long as Christianity is a function, an expression of the Western World, it's all but useless to the World.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
I probably agree with you Martin..., but your statement is a bit cryptic for me.
Care to expand, or are you intentionally non-specific?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
Western Christianity may well be, Martin, but Eastern Christianity, alive and well, is not.
I think we often forget Eastern Christianity.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Western Christianity may well be, Martin, but Eastern Christianity, alive and well, is not.
I think we often forget Eastern Christianity.
Or Southern Christianity. It's all alive and well except Western Christianity.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
The antipodes aren't doing that well, Freddy .
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As long as Christianity is a function, an expression of the Western World, it's all but useless to the World.
Don't you have cause and effect reversed? The church is largely the architect of the Western World since the fall of the Roman Empire.
As such, it will be relevant to the rest of the world as long as it hankers after the West.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I am trying to see how Christianity can regain its appeal in the western world.
If this is what you're after, then the only question you need to answer is:
What's in it for me?
What is Christianity actually offering people in this life? Is it something they actually want, or is it a hard life of service to others and self-denial?
In the same way God presented the Israelites with a choice between life and death when they were about to enter the land of Canaan, Christ also presents us with a choice between life and death. Each of the four Gospels contains a variation of this choice, which is also a promise:
quote:
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
(Mt 16:25 - see also Mr 8:35, Lu 9:24, Lu 17:33, Joh 12:25)
John 12 in particular has a slightly different version:
quote:
He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.
He wants our joy to be complete and he tells us how to receive it. The problem is that in order to be able to receive it, we have to give up the parts of our life that are the most precious to us: the things that appeal to us on a very external level and that we think will make us happy. The things that we do and acquire without stopping to think about them because they feel good to us.
So in order to be willing to give up those things, we have to believe in him and trust him, that what he says is true and good. And when we begin to try to do what he says, it feels like we are giving up our happiness, and even our identity, for something that we are sure is dry and joyless, something that seems like it will surely be a virtual death.
But what he has promised us is that if we do give up these things for his sake, we will eventually discover that after we have given up our life, he has given us a new one that fills us and satisfies us in ways that we never could have imagined. He resurrects us in ways that we started out believing would be impossible. And my own belief is that while he fulfills his promise to us in this life enough to motivate us to continue on our path, the complete fulfillment waits for our eternal life.
This may sound like a variation of "if you'll behave, I'll give you a reward when this is all over," but I think the disparity between this life and our eternal life is necessary because of God's purpose for us in this life. Our purpose here and now is to make our choice in an environment that allows us to have access to both the good and the bad, an environment that allows them to be mixed together and exist side by side. But the very fact that our physical environment allows them both to coexist in such close quarters means that we can't experience either to the fullest extent possible.
Which is why the Bible is so full of references to judgment. The purpose of the physical world is to allow good and bad to coexist, but the purpose of the spiritual realm of the afterlife is to separate them completely. This is because complete separation is necessary to allow us to experience the fullest enjoyment of our choice. Judgment is simply this process of complete separation, which benefits everyone and prepares them for their eternal life, wherever it may be.
So I think Christ (and by extension, Christianity) offers us a choice and a paradoxical promise:
quote:
He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.
Without the eternal part, I don't think many of us would be willing to give up very much.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Without the eternal part, I don't think many of us would be willing to give up very much.
I heartily agree. Christianity only has an appeal to "the man in the street" because of what it offers in the next life. What it offers in this life is largely unappealing.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
(additional:)
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
we have to believe in [God] and trust him, that what he says is true and good.
That's the hard part.
The really hard part.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Maybe I wasn't clear in my prior post where I quoted CS Lewis' "Silver Chair". The after life and all the focus on it doesn't answer suffering in the present. In the now. In this world.
I profoundly disagree. It is only if this life is all there is that suffering becomes meaningless and hopeless. In the light of eternity even difficult lives can be filled with hope.
There are those who have been able to withstand the most awful circumstances because of the certain hope of eternal life:
It is well with my soul is a testimony to the value of Christian faith in this life of suffering.
[ 16. October 2012, 11:33: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Maybe I wasn't clear in my prior post where I quoted CS Lewis' "Silver Chair". The after life and all the focus on it doesn't answer suffering in the present. In the now. In this world.
It is only if this life is all there is that suffering becomes meaningless and hopeless.
This I can agree with. As the great St. Martyn of Joseph said:
"If there is no bigger picture
Then this is obscene; this is all absurd"
HOWEVER - I don't think that solves the problem of suffering in this world; it merely places it within a wider context.
[ 16. October 2012, 11:36: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Without the eternal part, I don't think many of us would be willing to give up very much.
I heartily agree. Christianity only has an appeal to "the man in the street" because of what it offers in the next life. What it offers in this life is largely unappealing.
let me list some of he temporal blessings of Christianity which you claim to find unappealling: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, hope, healing, forgiveness, fellowship, the Holy Spirit, redemption,. What's unappealling about these things? Even the most 'macho' man in the street would probably agree that at least one or two of these things are appealing.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Without the eternal part, I don't think many of us would be willing to give up very much.
I heartily agree. Christianity only has an appeal to "the man in the street" because of what it offers in the next life. What it offers in this life is largely unappealing.
let me list some of he temporal blessings of Christianity which you claim to find unappealling: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, hope, healing, forgiveness, fellowship, the Holy Spirit, redemption,. What's unappealling about these things? Even the most 'macho' man in the street would probably agree that at least one or two of these things are appealing.
They're appealing to experience. I think a lot of people aren't too keen on being expected to express them.
Being forgiven, for example, is far more appealing than doing the forgiving. Especially if you enjoy a good grudge.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
He wants our joy to be complete and he tells us how to receive it. The problem is that in order to be able to receive it, we have to give up the parts of our life that are the most precious to us: the things that appeal to us on a very external level and that we think will make us happy. The things that we do and acquire without stopping to think about them because they feel good to us.
So in order to be willing to give up those things, we have to believe in him and trust him, that what he says is true and good. And when we begin to try to do what he says, it feels like we are giving up our happiness, and even our identity, for something that we are sure is dry and joyless, something that seems like it will surely be a virtual death.
But what he has promised us is that if we do give up these things for his sake, we will eventually discover that after we have given up our life, he has given us a new one that fills us and satisfies us in ways that we never could have imagined. He resurrects us in ways that we started out believing would be impossible. And my own belief is that while he fulfills his promise to us in this life enough to motivate us to continue on our path, the complete fulfillment waits for our eternal life.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Well put.
quote:
This may sound like a variation of "if you'll behave, I'll give you a reward when this is all over," but I think the disparity between this life and our eternal life is necessary because of God's purpose for us in this life. Our purpose here and now is to make our choice in an environment that allows us to have access to both the good and the bad, an environment that allows them to be mixed together and exist side by side. But the very fact that our physical environment allows them both to coexist in such close quarters means that we can't experience either to the fullest extent possible.
Which is why the Bible is so full of references to judgment. The purpose of the physical world is to allow good and bad to coexist, but the purpose of the spiritual realm of the afterlife is to separate them completely. This is because complete separation is necessary to allow us to experience the fullest enjoyment of our choice. Judgment is simply this process of complete separation, which benefits everyone and prepares them for their eternal life, wherever it may be.
I'm not convinced of the either/or nature of this. I think that we can experience life in the physical environment to the fullest extent possible once we grow within the new spiritual life we've received. I believe that our bodies, minds, and spirits interact with each other to such an extent that if any one aspect is harmed or doesn't grow there's an inevitable impact on the other two. Wholeness comes only from God imv, another plus point for the appeal of Christianity.
Judgement from within relationship becomes a helping hand, to assist us on our spiritual progression in this life. The promise of the next life is exciting as it's deliciously mysterious, and the wonderful glimpses we're given leave us hungry and thirsty for it, but it's an added bonus: there's no emptiness in Christianity without it, imv.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
let me list some of he temporal blessings of Christianity which you claim to find unappealling: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, hope, healing, forgiveness, fellowship, the Holy Spirit, redemption,. What's unappealling about these things? Even the most 'macho' man in the street would probably agree that at least one or two of these things are appealing.
See, now we're getting somewhere. Maybe. Let's see.
First up, with the exception of the Holy Spirit (which is ill-defined in this list, with no indication of why the "man in the street" should want it) none of those things are exclusive to Christianity. In fact, most of them aren't even tangible offerings - joy, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control are personality traits, not things that can be offered to someone. I suppose you might mean that Christianity can teach someone to become patient, kind, gentle etc., but that's a different thing and is predicated on the assumption that the person you're offering to teach actually wants to learn.
Hope, healing, forgiveness and redemption are just more references to the next life. Unless you're claiming that Christianity counts as a form of healthcare that is so efficacious that it can be offered to "the man on the street" in the same way as a new medicine might be. Can Christianity offer healing as reliably as a hospital? If not, take it off this list.
That leaves us with love, peace and fellowship. Now, fellowship is a good one. I'm not going to deny that the chance to meet and befriend new people is a good thing. But again, it's hardly unique to Christianity - you could get exactly the same effect by joining a Bridge Club. I suspect peace here to be yet another reference to the next life, in an "all things will be well in the Kingdom" sense.
Which leaves us with love. Who could deny that love is a good thing? But this is a tricky one when we're talking about what Christianity has to offer in this life. Whose love? Demonstrated how? Given how? People may say "God loves you", but why should I care? What does it actually mean for my life? What difference does it make?
And here's the clincher: not one of those things you list is guaranteed to the new convert (except fellowship - that one stands, for what it's worth). They're all empty promises with no delivery. If the truth in advertising laws applied to religion you wouldn't be able to offer a single one to your target audience without reams of small print saying "but you might not get this" at the bottom of the poster.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No Alogon, the Church is Western. Greco-Roman above ALL. The impact of unadulterated Christianity, pure and undefiled on the development of Western civilization is not quantifiable. There is VERY little sign of it. If any. It's like looking for 'proof' of God in creation. It's post-hoc, in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Well, I was thinking about it more in terms of what God offers us: forgiveness for example. I've had people - including former gangsters and drug dealers - cry on my shoulder like babies when I've explained that God forgives them.
What about love? There are people in my congregation - particularly single mums with violent former partners - for whom the love of Jesus has been a very real and experiential blessing.
What about redemption? I've led drug addicts to Christ who are staggered by the revelation that Jesus values them enough to die for them.
What about grace? I've introduced ex-Jehovah's Witness to the doctrine of grace and literally seen them come alive with joy and relief before my very eyes.
What about the Holy Spirit? I've seen people who have struggled for decades for any sense of reality in their faith finally understand the power and presence of Jesus in their lives by being filled with his Holy Spirit.
I could go on...
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Rather than get myself analysed, I am trying to see how Christianity can regain its appeal in the western world.
By first talking the talk of a better life and then walking the walk.
There is one Christian value in British society that stands out from secular society. Homophobic bigotry. This is one where Christians both talk the talk and walk the walk. And it is not of a better life.
Other than that, Christian values appear to be "be nice". And in many cases hypocritical - especially about material wealth (note: the Pope is the most obvious example - but the CofE is little better). I don't think there's been a famous example of someone really driving things forward from Christianity that wouldn't have done the same as an Atheist since Mother Teresa - and even she is highly controversial.
Ultimately what's going on is that liberal Christianity isn't presenting a vision, and conservative Christianity is presenting a vision - that will make the world worse. Neither of these are appealing. And few obviously walk the walk to make the world better - if I wanted ideas that won't work I'd join the Commies; at least they have a vision of what to do.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, I was thinking about it more in terms of what God offers us
Does He deliver though? Empty promises are empty promises whomever they come from.
quote:
former gangsters and drug dealers ... single mums with violent former partners ... drug addicts
So what about the normal, average "man on the street" who isn't a vicious criminal, abuse victim or drug addict? I can see exactly why such people feel the need for what Christianity offers, but what about those who feel they've already got plenty of love in their lives and who don't think they've done anything that particularly needs to be forgiven?
quote:
What about the Holy Spirit? I've seen people who have struggled for decades for any sense of reality in their faith finally understand the power and presence of Jesus in their lives by being filled with his Holy Spirit.
I could respond to the point about it taking decades with a rejoinder about how unappealing such a wait is, but I'm far more intrigued about this "power of Jesus in their lives" thing. What does that look like? What benefits does it offer, and what advantages does it provide?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is well with my soul is a testimony to the value of Christian faith in this life of suffering.
It is indeed - did you hear the CCK Brighton (NF) version on "Songs of Praise" a week ago?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris: the word 'holy' is applied to them; another word which I think should be redefined to remove its link with God/god/s
Why not use another word rather than try to change the meaning of the existing one?
Because a synonym of 'holy' would not have the same history and would need too long to establish itself as a replacement. Acgtually, I suppose people very often use the word 'holy' without including its godly overtones, so perhaps there is hope for it!
quote:
Is it all part of the grand plan to try to erase any mention of God from people's lives?
Decidedly not, because it is extremely important that the teaching of history must include an understanding of how a belief in God/god/s cannot possibly be separated from events.
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I quite agree that everyone is spiritual. I think shadeson was saying that atheism has nothing to say about what happens after death, and not really that it could have nothing spiritual in life.
Yes, I'm sure you're right thank you!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
The misunderstanding is more serious:
quote:
Why would you think that an atheist cannot be 'spiritual'? This word cannot be applied to religious belief only
I actually said "it is probable that death arouses the most questions about spiritual things"
Yes,my apologies. And I can't really use my screen reader as an excuse!
quote:
Perhaps I might have added "in peoples minds" because its an awkward subject in the 21st century.
Hmmm, yes, it is, isn't it ... and will probably become more so.
quote:
That was my deliberate misquote.
Read Studdert Kennedy's poem "Faith" ........
I have just done that. I think he's entirely wrong about there being God; I could never return to faith in any interpretation of God.
I cannot express an opinion on its worth as a poem, as I do not have the necessary knowledge I'm afraid.
[ 16. October 2012, 13:50: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Marvin the Martian, Super post = the one ending:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the truth in advertising laws applied to religion you wouldn't be able to offer a single one to your target audience without reams of small print saying "but you might not get this" at the bottom of the poster.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, I was thinking about it more in terms of what God offers us
Does He deliver though? Empty promises are empty promises whomever they come from.
quote:
former gangsters and drug dealers ... single mums with violent former partners ... drug addicts
So what about the normal, average "man on the street" who isn't a vicious criminal, abuse victim or drug addict? I can see exactly why such people feel the need for what Christianity offers, but what about those who feel they've already got plenty of love in their lives and who don't think they've done anything that particularly needs to be forgiven?
quote:
What about the Holy Spirit? I've seen people who have struggled for decades for any sense of reality in their faith finally understand the power and presence of Jesus in their lives by being filled with his Holy Spirit.
I could respond to the point about it taking decades with a rejoinder about how unappealing such a wait is, but I'm far more intrigued about this "power of Jesus in their lives" thing. What does that look like? What benefits does it offer, and what advantages does it provide?
Yes, I think he delivers, but the evidence I offer is purely anecdotal, so it's up to you to accept it or not.
The people I've mentioned are normal and average. They are the people in my street. Heck, they are the people in my congregation and there's only about 80 of us! But I suppose the truthful answer to your question would be this: some sins are spectacular in their observable depravity, like violence and drug dealing. Other sins require more careful management because they undergird our sense of superiority; sins like pride and self-satisfaction. Normal and average includes drug dealers, single mums, business men, and people like you. I'm sorry to say it, Marvin, but you're not special. You're not he exception to the rule. No one is.
Finally, with regard to "having the power of Jesus in their lives" I would say this: it deals precisely with the question in this OP.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
George Spigot: Ditto (i.e. super post)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, I think he delivers, but the evidence I offer is purely anecdotal, so it's up to you to accept it or not.
Indeed. If I'm looking for something I want (love, say), I'm going to get it from a source that actually provides some evidence that it can and will come up with the goods, rather than one that expects me to trust it for no reason.
And that's why the love in my life comes from family and friends rather than religion. OK, some of the family and friends are people I met through church, but that's not the same thing.
quote:
The people I've mentioned are normal and average. They are the people in my street. Heck, they are the people in my congregation and there's only about 80 of us! But I suppose the truthful answer to your question would be this: some sins are spectacular in their observable depravity, like violence and drug dealing. Other sins require more careful management because they undergird our sense of superiority; sins like pride and self-satisfaction. Normal and average includes drug dealers, single mums, business men, and people like you. I'm sorry to say it, Marvin, but you're not special. You're not he exception to the rule. No one is.
OK, so because a gangster or drug dealer feels a massive amount of guilt (that only religion can assuage) I'm supposed to as well? Because an unfortunate woman without dependable family relationships feels an absence of love in her life (that only religion can replace), I'm supposed to as well?
quote:
Finally, with regard to "having the power of Jesus in their lives" I would say this: it deals precisely with the question in this OP.
That's a total non-answer.
OK, so Christianity is offering the power of Jesus in people's lives. Even assuming that's something that actually exists, the question of why anyone should want it remains. What benefits or advantages does it give them in this life?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Susan, what non-God meanings are there for Holy? It means "set apart for God." Here's what you get when you google \define holy\
1. Dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred: "the Holy Bible"; "the holy month of Ramadan".
2. (of a person) Devoted to the service of God: "saints and holy men".
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Marvin. I think you should feel ashamed of your sin, not the sin of anyone else. Apparently, your sins, as you like to point out, are more sophisticated and less serious than those of other people. That may be true.
By he same token, you seem to believe that your spiritual needs are fewer that those of other people. Again, that may also be true. But the fact that someone else has a particular, and perhaps more pressing need, for God's love is no reason for you to think that your need is less significant to God.
You should experience shame concerning your own sins. And you should experience feelings of desire concerning your own needs. Start there.
[ 16. October 2012, 16:29: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Is it all part of the grand plan to try to erase any mention of God from people's lives?
Decidedly not, because it is extremely important that the teaching of history must include an understanding of how a belief in God/god/s cannot possibly be separated from events.
You're trying to limit God to the past, and consign God to history. God is very much a part of people's lives in the present and will be in the future too, in my view. What needs to be consigned to history is some of the theological baggage we've accumulated and which still spreads on the breezes of urban myth.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Thank you for this post! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Susan, what non-God meanings are there for Holy? It means "set apart for God."
Oh dear!! *puts on dunce's cap and turns slightly pink*!!
I was thinking - anything that is given the adjective 'holy' has been written or made or assigned that description. This does not turn any such artefact into something different.
I started a dis cussion elsewhere a couple of years ago to ask why anything should be called holy since there is no way that would enable someone to tell it was supposed to be holy, unless told so by a person.
quote:
Here's what you get when you google \define holy\
1. Dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred: "the Holy Bible"; "the holy month of Ramadan".
Nothing in itself can be holy; it must be designated so by a human being and since, as far as I'm concerned, there is no god anyway, I never use the word.
quote:
2. (of a person) Devoted to the service of God: "saints and holy men".
This makes it sound as if 'holy' people are more equal than the rest of us!!
On the whole then, I think the word 'holy' should disappear completely! I don't think the same applies to 'sacred', since this is used to refer to things, ideas, places =, etc that people consider sacred to them.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Is it all part of the grand plan to try to erase any mention of God from people's lives?
Decidedly not, because it is extremely important that the teaching of history must include an understanding of how a belief in God/god/s cannot possibly be separated from events.
You're trying to limit God to the past, and consign God to history.
Ah, no, I did not intend to imply that, since history must always include everything up to the present.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
From Marv our resident Martian
Hope, healing, forgiveness and redemption are just more references to the next life. Unless you're claiming that Christianity counts as a form of healthcare that is so efficacious that it can be offered to "the man on the street" in the same way as a new medicine might be. Can Christianity offer healing as reliably as a hospital? If not, take it off this list.
I'm touched by your faith in hospitals. Most people in hospital beds have long- term health conditions. Hospitals aren't places that heal people, they help people manage their health conditions. Prayer plays a part in that for many folks. Your views of hospitals is so nineteenth century.
Forgiveness isn't for the next life, it's for this one. As is redemption. Redemption is a new alignment towards God. We get forgiven because we get free to live for Christ. We all need forgiveness to maintain a healthy relationship with anyone. But since you say you don't have a relationship with God I can understand why you relegate forgiveness to the afterlife.
That's not a crack by the way - I understand why you say it and why for you it makes sense. But for people who have a relationship with God, forgiveness is an ever present, and essential daily reality. It's why Jesus told us to pray 'forgive us our debts/sins.' in fact, the Lord's prayer is all about this life. Think about that the next time you say it/hear it in church.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is well with my soul is a testimony to the value of Christian faith in this life of suffering.
It is indeed - did you hear the CCK Brighton (NF) version on "Songs of Praise" a week ago?
No, was it good? I'll look on iPlayer
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is indeed - did you hear the CCK Brighton (NF) version on "Songs of Praise" a week ago?
No, was it good? I'll look on iPlayer
You might find it, but it's more than 7 days old now. I can possibly make a file and put it onto an FTP server for you if you have no joy.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No Alogon, the Church is Western. Greco-Roman above ALL. The impact of unadulterated Christianity, pure and undefiled on the development of Western civilization is not quantifiable. There is VERY little sign of it. If any. It's like looking for 'proof' of God in creation. It's post-hoc, in the eye of the beholder.
So it cuts no quantifiable ice to observe, for instance, that universities arose under church (and especially papal) sponsorship or that Benedictine monks drained the swamps of Europe-- one must state exactly how many universities or how many square miles of swamp?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No Sir, those are worthy endeavours. But what have they got to do with Christ? What have they got to do with visiting widows and orphans in their affliction? They would have happened under Islamic or Confucist or Hindu rule. What kingdom have the beatitudes built?
[ 16. October 2012, 20:26: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Unless you are LGBT - saith the Anglican Communion and the RCC.
LGBTs are not loved. They are going to Hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect £200.
Different church to the ones you mentioned, but check out the left hand box in the middle of this web page.
This is a very high profile church in Glasgow, so not a statement they'd make without careful thought.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is indeed - did you hear the CCK Brighton (NF) version on "Songs of Praise" a week ago?
No, was it good? I'll look on iPlayer
You might find it, but it's more than 7 days old now. I can possibly make a file and put it onto an FTP server for you if you have no joy.
No, the only one there is from Stoke
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Suppose teaching about what happens after death is taken out of its theology, what then is the appeal of Christianity to the ‘man in the street’?
As one of the resident atheists here, I'd say that it is becoming less and less appealing to the man in the street!
Which man in which street Susan? In the last 30 years more than 5,000 churches have been planted in the UK not to mention new "missional communities" of believers sharing their faith in communities without the full-blown paraphernalia of more established church formats.
You might also want to look at the experience of countries that have tried formally and positively to discourage belief in God as a matter of social policy, and have now abandoned the idea.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No Sir, those are worthy endeavours. But what have they got to do with Christ? What have they got to do with visiting widows and orphans in their affliction? They would have happened under Islamic or Confucist or Hindu rule. What kingdom have the beatitudes built?
Hold your horses, Martin.
I find it hard to believe that those things do not happen in those societies. The image of God and Christ are there as well. Certainly in Tibetan/Mahyana Buddhism there is the ideal of the compassionate Bodhisattva, so in my Chaplaincy/Spiritual care course we had a Bhuddist Monk and Nun. For them, Christ is a Bodhisattva.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Aye, Latchkey Kid, I'm not denigrating Islam, Buddhism, Confucism, Hinduism, Sikhism, humanism or comparing them badly with European religion at all.
On the contrary.
The whole creation groans in expectation.
I am convinced that Christ is coming to all of these cultures and more, even Christendom.
That a global culture of the beatitudes is about to pour out of all flesh.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Which man in which street Susan? In the last 30 years more than 5,000 churches have been planted in the UK not to mention new "missional communities" of believers sharing their faith in communities without the full-blown paraphernalia of more established church formats.
Churches have been planted. They have also born little fruit. In the 25 years between 1980 and 2005, church attendance in England has dropped from 5.06 million to 3.07 million. or a drop of 39%. In the same 25 year period the number of churches in the UK has dropped by more than 2500, so for every church planted, 1.5 has closed. So church attendance has dropped by 39% and church numbers by only 5%. Which says something about the numbers in each church.
And even the "New Churches" have lost 14% of their worshippers in the ten years between 1995 and 2005. Only the numbers of the Pentecostals and the Orthodoxen are rising (and there are only just over 25,000 Orthodoxen).
quote:
You might also want to look at the experience of countries that have tried formally and positively to discourage belief in God as a matter of social policy, and have now abandoned the idea.
You mean like Russia? Where instead of discouraging belief (the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church), Patriarch Kirill is calling Putin's presidency 'A Miracle of God'?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
And while I'm at it, church planting is in massive decline. It is true that in the past 30 years over five thousand new churches have been planted. In fact almost six thousand have. But between 1980 and 1994 just over four thousand churches were planted. Between 1995 and 2010 just under two thousand churches were planted.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
we have to believe in [God] and trust him, that what he says is true and good.
That's the hard part.
The really hard part.
Yes, that's true, it is.
It's hard enough to believe intellectually, but it's even harder to base our life on it, and hardest of all to embrace it with our whole being, so it can actually get harder the longer we try. However, Christ has been there before us and is with us to help. And when we get glimpses of where he is leading us, it's possible to know that it is worth all the sacrifice, even in the here and now.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, the only one there is from Stoke
I'll try and find time to put it on youtube tonight - I'll send you a message when it's done.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
@Mudfrog:
I tried to message you, but your message box is full:
Anyway, re CCK Brighton's version of "It is Well With My Soul," someone has beaten me to it:
Brighton Pt 3
It begins at 02.08
enjoy!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
@Mudfrog:
I tried to message you, but your message box is full:
Anyway, re CCK Brighton's version of "It is Well With My Soul," someone has beaten me to it:
Brighton Pt 3
It begins at 02.08
enjoy!
Hmmm
Not sure about the 'poppy' rhythm and tune. Hate that he has altered the words and taken away the depth of emotion that was within the words, reflecting the experience of the original author.
I really don't like the flat cap either.
Sorry.
Try
This
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Justinian
Many thanks for posting the statistics; I was going to have to seek help on thatquestion.
Ramarius
Thank you for response, but I am grateful to Justinian for quoting the statistics.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
originally posted by daronmedway
quote:
Well, I was thinking about it more in terms of what God offers us: forgiveness for example. I've had people - including former gangsters and drug dealers - cry on my shoulder like babies when I've explained that God forgives them.
What you are saying relates directly to the healing Jesus did for the prostitutes, lepers, deaf, lame - he went on to tell them that their sins were forgiven.
However Jesus also preached to the crowds on many occasions and it is recorded that he made disciples. What about those who were happy with their lives and didn’t fornicate or drink - did they worry about going to hell. They probably disliked the religious fanatics who crucified him and got on with their lives.
I am of the view that when Jesus said Christians were to be salt, light etc. he didn’t blame the dough for being what it was. There will never be many Christians but to then say that the dough is going to be burnt in the oven (hope you understand my twist) makes the message look just medieval.
Maybe that is why this thread has not come up with many answers.
Incidentally, what do you say to the bereaved?
------------------------------------------------
Now we see through a glass darkly, but then, face to face
------------------------------------------------
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
I'm touched by your faith in hospitals.
Hey, I never said they had a 100% success rate. Just that if I'm in need of healing I'll go to a hospital rather than to a church.
quote:
We all need forgiveness to maintain a healthy relationship with anyone. But since you say you don't have a relationship with God I can understand why you relegate forgiveness to the afterlife.
That's not a crack by the way - I understand why you say it and why for you it makes sense. But for people who have a relationship with God, forgiveness is an ever present, and essential daily reality.
While I'm sure that's true, it doesn't exactly help when asking what Christianity has to offer to anyone who isn't already Christian, and/or doesn't already have that relationship with God.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Hmmm
Not sure about the 'poppy' rhythm and tune. Hate that he has altered the words and taken away the depth of emotion that was within the words, reflecting the experience of the original author.
I really don't like the flat cap either.
Sorry.
Try
This
Yes well.. the changes to the words could be down to the BBC - you know they don't like anything which isn't christianity-lite on "Songs of Praise".
As for the flat cap - well, you know in many churches he'd be politely asked to remove it. I don't know about Salvationists, but we would consider it the height of bad manners!
But this is NewFrontiers, so they go by their own rules - we can't tell them what to do any more than they can us.
Anyway, thanks for your video of the song - I quite like the NF version myself, but it helps to hear it sung the way it was intended for comparison.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No Sir, those are worthy endeavours. But what have they got to do with Christ?
I don't have a definitive reply to that deep question on the the tip of my tongue, other than a feeling that Christ encourages many worthy endeavors and opposes none. He certainly did not want Pilate's question "what is truth?" to go unanswered.
quote:
They would have happened under Islamic or Confucist or Hindu rule.
Then why didn't they?
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
[QUOTE]They would have happened under Islamic or Confucist or Hindu rule.
Then why didn't they?
Much learning development did occur in the Islamic world, viz algebra among many fields.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Much learning, yes, in the golden age, but science as we know it never got a foothold.
One could add that our very definition of "worthy endeavor" is so informed by Christian values as to make it almost tautological in our culture. You, Martin, and I take it for granted that education, higher education, and empirical research are a worthy endeavor. But other parts of the world would take grave exception to that assumption even now.
For instance, coed universities are routine in the west and not even a hopeless male chauvinist like me would object in principle. But to this day high-profile Muslims believe that schooling is a "worthy endeaver" only for males. As recent news reveals, the Taliban ("seekers of truth", ha!) go to the mat over this. Obviously, some of them would rather see a 14-year-old girl dead than attending school and encouraging her sisters to do likewise.
Did the Christian cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary have anything to do with this difference (and others)? Nah, says Martin. But I'm Hegelian enough to think so.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And while I'm at it, church planting is in massive decline. It is true that in the past 30 years over five thousand new churches have been planted. In fact almost six thousand have. But between 1980 and 1994 just over four thousand churches were planted. Between 1995 and 2010 just under two thousand churches were planted.
The point I was addressing was about the relevance of Christianity to the man in the street. The evidence of a vibrant church planting movement is evidence of relevance. You could also add in the numbers of
Missional Communities which I mentioned in the original point.
Attachment to faith in the UK ebbs and flows historically. Current trends are that it's on the flow path.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE][qb]You might also want to look at the experience of countries that have tried formally and positively to discourage belief in God as a matter of social policy, and have now abandoned the idea.
You mean like Russia? Where instead of discouraging belief (the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church), Patriarch Kirill is calling Putin's presidency 'A Miracle of God'?
He means like Russia where Stalin killed
twenty million of his fellow human beings.
No idea what you point about Payriarch Krill is supposed to illustrate.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
[QUOTE]We all need forgiveness to maintain a healthy relationship with anyone. But since you say you don't have a relationship with God I can understand why you relegate forgiveness to the afterlife.
.
While I'm sure that's true, it doesn't exactly help when asking what Christianity has to offer to anyone who isn't already Christian, and/or doesn't already have that relationship with God.
How about the open invitation to experience it for themselves.
Why not take up the offer?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And while I'm at it, church planting is in massive decline. It is true that in the past 30 years over five thousand new churches have been planted. In fact almost six thousand have. But between 1980 and 1994 just over four thousand churches were planted. Between 1995 and 2010 just under two thousand churches were planted.
The point I was addressing was about the relevance of Christianity to the man in the street. The evidence of a vibrant church planting movement is evidence of relevance. You could also add in the numbers of
Missional Communities which I mentioned in the original point.
Attachment to faith in the UK ebbs and flows historically. Current trends are that it's on the flow path.
Did you even read your own link? Let alone mine?
quote:
Average weekly attendance was down slightly at 1,116,100 (2009: 1,130,600), with average monthly attendance also slightly down at 1,645,500 (2009: 1,650,600) illustrating how many worship on a convenient day during the month, not necessarily Sunday. Average Sunday attendance dropped two per cent to 923,700 (2009: 944,400). The average number of children and young people at services each week was down two per cent at 218,600 (2009: 223,000); while the number of children and young people attending on a monthly basis was virtually unchanged at 437,700 (2009: 436,200).
Even in the year, with a rising population, and an immigrant population that is a lot more strongly Christian, church attendance is falling. By your own numbers the Church is marginally less relevant than it was even last year.
As for your so-called 'fresh expressions', those are mostly an attempt to put new wine into old wineskins. A 'fresh expression' is not the same thing as a planted church (the numbers of which, as I have shown, are tumbling). It can be as little as a new type of service - something the churches I am familiar with have played with and kept the ones that work. 2000 fresh expressions is an utterly meaningless number - there is no basis of historical comparison. Were there a simmilar number of outreach and evangelism projects in the 80s? Almost certainly more. Or do you somehow think the Great Commission is a new thing?
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE][qb]You might also want to look at the experience of countries that have tried formally and positively to discourage belief in God as a matter of social policy, and have now abandoned the idea.
You mean like Russia? Where instead of discouraging belief (the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church), Patriarch Kirill is calling Putin's presidency 'A Miracle of God'?
He means like Russia where Stalin killed
twenty million of his fellow human beings.
No idea what you point about Payriarch Krill is supposed to illustrate.
That you don't try to suppress Christianity. It is a seriously stupid idea when ever since the days of Constantine the Church has been asking to be coopted by the secular authorities.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
How about the open invitation to experience it for themselves.
Why not take up the offer?
To accept an invitation to experience something, one first has to believe that the something exists. Otherwise the invitation is completely meaningless.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
To me as an atheist, Christianity offered the reality of God. That was its appeal - it was true.
To me (subsequently) as a Christian, Christianity offers the appeal: "Now I see through a glass darkly, but then I shall face to face" (1 Cor 13). "God appeal" - the surpassing beauty, splendour, majesty, truth, glory, wisdom and (above all) love, of God - and the prospect of seeing all that goodness revealed, rather than hidden - is a profound appeal. Scary too, but still, there is nothing to compare.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And while I'm at it, church planting is in massive decline. It is true that in the past 30 years over five thousand new churches have been planted. In fact almost six thousand have. But between 1980 and 1994 just over four thousand churches were planted. Between 1995 and 2010 just under two thousand churches were planted.
The point I was addressing was about the relevance of Christianity to the man in the street. The evidence of a vibrant church planting movement is evidence of relevance. You could also add in the numbers of
Missional Communities which I mentioned in the original point.
The use of the word "plant" here and in Justinian's link puts a positive spin on the evidence, but it is unsupported. The section headed "Decline in church planting" is actually all churches opened and closed, whatever the reason. To assume that all of those new churches are plants, with the impression of vibrancy that goes with it, is unjustified. A church set up due to a doctrinal split in a congregation of 20 would just as much count as a new church.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Pre-Cambrian
It is equally true that it is very hard to count the new churches. About a decade ago I took a vague interest in this locally. New churches seem to appear spontaneously all the time in this area. Few last five years but there seems to be two replacements for each one that goes defunct. Most seem to consist of five people meeting in someone's sitting room.
Splits?
No Students and a very volatile population which many evangelical minded people seem to think is calling out to be evangelised. Conversions may actually be happening but they are like seeds that fell by a brook which initially flourished but then the brook flooded and they were washed away as the soil eroded around them.
Jengie
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Justinian
Many thanks for posting the statistics; I was going to have to seek help on thatquestion.
Ramarius
Thank you for response, but I am grateful to Justinian for quoting the statistics.
In terms of Christianity and atheistc states, China is probably the most fascinating example.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Pre-Cambrian
It is equally true that it is very hard to count the new churches. About a decade ago I took a vague interest in this locally. New churches seem to appear spontaneously all the time in this area. Few last five years but there seems to be two replacements for each one that goes defunct. Most seem to consist of five people meeting in someone's sitting room.
Splits?
No Students and a very volatile population which many evangelical minded people seem to think is calling out to be evangelised. Conversions may actually be happening but they are like seeds that fell by a brook which initially flourished but then the brook flooded and they were washed away as the soil eroded around them.
Jengie
I seem to remember we discussed this in some detail in another thread. But for the sake of completeness, here's a summary of the headlines of the
evidence to which Ramarius refers.
And yes, I have a copy.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
Exactly. That summary refers to 5000 new churches, not 5000 church plants. They are not the same thing and without further digging to find out what those 5000 entail you cannot unequivocally claim it as a sign of vibrancy.
The fact that the Church of England newspaper report uses raw statistics without the crucial context to make several claims like that indicates that its interpretation should be approached with caution.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
Four possibilities:
1. There is a God and an afterlife
2. There is a God but no afterlife
3. There is an afterlife but no God
4. There is neither an afterlife or a God
Possibility 2 strikes me as the most 'appealing', overall.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Exactly. That summary refers to 5000 new churches, not 5000 church plants. They are not the same thing and without further digging to find out what those 5000 entail you cannot unequivocally claim it as a sign of vibrancy.
The fact that the Church of England newspaper report uses raw statistics without the crucial context to make several claims like that indicates that its interpretation should be approached with caution.
Good catch on new churches not being the same as planted churches, thanks. And speaking as a professional statistician, the "Fresh expressions" link Ramarius provided rang my bullshit alarm hard. There were two cardinal statistical sins - both of which are used for either incompetence or a cover-up.
1: No baseline. Any number without a baseline is effectively meaningless (some things on a human scale are intuitive enough that you might not need an explicit one - I don't need a baseline explicitely presented to know "everyone in that family weighs over 200kg" is an exceptional statement - but anything across the population of England isn't).
2: The grouping of diverse things as 'Fresh Expressions' and then not differentiating them. A fresh expression can be things including a new church, a new family service, or a week night town centre service for working people. One of these things is not like the other ones. One of these things doesn't belong...
There is only only one reason a competent statitician groups things like this in a way they haven't been grouped before and that makes less sense because the factors are fundamentally unlike. This is to try to plump up the figures, normally to bury bad news. I'm pretty sure that if the number of churches being planted was increasing this would be trumpeted from the rooftops. Instead it is buried under the banner of 'fresh expressions'. These 'fresh expressions' smell like a rat to me.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Why are we even discussing church plants?
Even if there are six bajillion new churches planted every year, that can only ever answer the question "does Christianity appeal to the man in the street". It says absolutely nothing about what that appeal is.
There may be plenty of people who are content to say "we must be doing something right but buggered if I know what it is", but this is not the thread for them.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Four possibilities:
1. There is a God and an afterlife
2. There is a God but no afterlife
3. There is an afterlife but no God
4. There is neither an afterlife or a God
Possibility 2 strikes me as the most 'appealing', overall.
So God is mortal?
How can there be a God for my lifetime only? If there is a God for my grandfather's lifetime and his grandfather's lifetime, then evidently God is here for us all....when does God actually stopped existing? when the last human dies?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There may be plenty of people who are content to say "we must be doing something right but buggered if I know what it is", but this is not the thread for them.
Even "we must be doing something right" isn't certain. I can remember the explosion of numbers of small left wing groups in the 70s-80s. The word 'groupuscule' was coined for them. Like some of he churches mentioned above the numbers reflected weakness not strength. The number of groups increased but overall numbers decreased and perhaps more importantly solidarity and the advantages of clout were lost.
People tend to stay on board a successful organisation of any sort. When it starts to fail you get more and more arguments about what is wrong and people start their own splinter groups which tend to have a 'cultic' base - a groupuscule of true believers around a charismatic leader with a simplified world view.
Of course every group will point out that Christianity started that way so it isn't always a sign of failure.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Four possibilities:
1. There is a God and an afterlife
2. There is a God but no afterlife
3. There is an afterlife but no God
4. There is neither an afterlife or a God
Possibility 2 strikes me as the most 'appealing', overall.
So God is mortal?
How can there be a God for my lifetime only? If there is a God for my grandfather's lifetime and his grandfather's lifetime, then evidently God is here for us all....when does God actually stopped existing? when the last human dies?
I have just realised that what I have written doesn't necessarily follow. If there is no afterlife that doesn't necessarily mean that God is not eternal. But what I would say is that if there is no afterlife for us where we will join God in eternity, then Christianity, as stated in the Bible, is a falsehood and to quote Paul, if there is no resurrection, etc, then Christ is not raised and we are to be pitied and are still in our sins.
You simply can not have Christianity as a lifestyle choice / philosophy for this life only.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think that without the facts which would obviate the need for faith, then how can Christianity be better than the scientific reality which can be accessed on TV, radio and the internet? Those who prefer to have faith that God and Jesus are providing support are underestimating the power, strength and resourcefulness , as well as the imagination, of our human evolved brains.
You fall into the same fallacy as many who argue this: you assume Christianity is about assent to a set of propositions which, if falsified, would falsify Christianity.
The problem with that logic is that the premise is flawed. Christianity is not about assent to a set of propositions.
Scientific understanding is marvellous. I am awed by our expanding knowledge of the universe and by the clever bods who provide me with my weekly digest in New Scientist. I've read and understood original research on evolution and consider it an exemplary way to describe the descent of species. I've argued creationists to silence on why their beliefs are untenable. I'm not a scientist, but I am a very well-educated lay person.
None of that has any bearing on my Christianity. Christianity is not about a ten-step program to get into Heaven, it's all about relationships. And, Marvin, it's got nothing to do with a spending your life in crushing servitude.
For many reasons I consider myself one of the most reluctant Christians on the planet but I find that my life is better when I spend it with my perceived God than without. I echo C.S. Lewis: I love Christ the way I love the sun; not because I can see it, but because by it every thing else can be seen more clearly.
I am not in this for the afterlife. For a start I think that eternal life is already happening to me: merely the nature of it changes at death. Also I am not scared of death, and I am not living in the hope of seeing my loved ones when I pass through it (for philosophical reasons I don't believe I will). It's really really not about the afterlife.
Anyone can be nice to people: we should all aspire to be humanists. But if you're not living in the presence of God you're missing out on something extra. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to sell to the man on the street.
So I go about my life, trying to be all Christ-like, serving people out of a sense of deep joy, spending time with God, and just hope that the man on the street sees something in me and realises that whatever it is he lacks it and then starts to explore.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You simply can not have Christianity as a lifestyle choice / philosophy for this life only.
Well clearly you can. It just doesn't look like what you recognise as Christianity.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You simply can not have Christianity as a lifestyle choice / philosophy for this life only.
Well clearly you can. It just doesn't look like what you recognise as Christianity.
So, it would be 'christianity' without a resurrection - any kind of resurrection. Therefore it would have no redemption. Therefore the only message Jesus of Nazareth would give would be 'love your neighbour'.
What's the point of this religion then? We might just as well be pre-exilic Israelites.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Exactly. That summary refers to 5000 new churches, not 5000 church plants. They are not the same thing and without further digging to find out what those 5000 entail you cannot unequivocally claim it as a sign of vibrancy.
The fact that the Church of England newspaper report uses raw statistics without the crucial context to make several claims like that indicates that its interpretation should be approached with caution.
So let's dig a little further. The Ashgate research referred to is essentially qualitative, but since we are on a slight tangent looking at numbers here's a few. The research consists of a number of case studies from a range of Christian expressions to illustrate church growth in the UK. It notes, for example, that the Baptist Union planted around 200 churches in the 1990s, that around 14% of Baptist churches have a membership in excess of 350, and the majority of joiners do so after making a profession of faith.
Another example relates to churches planted out of church planting training colleges. Students from Victory Church Hampstead's former Bible College have planted over 100 churches in the UK.
Whilst it's true that some new churches are the result of division your conclusion that this somehow undermines the claim of vibrancy in church life doesn't necessarily follow. You made no assumption of the volume of new churches that start in this way, nor did you consider the possibility that churches started out of division may also be evidence of unreleased energy. As a professional statistician I'm surprised Justinian didn't consider this.
To make the point we can consider further the Ashgate research. The Redeemed Christian Church of God is an example of a church planting movement spawned in the UK by church planters frustrated in an existing denominational setting. One example is an RCC church that began has a house church in 1998, multiplied to 161 'parishes' by 2004, and to 440 by 2010.
And whilst we are on the subject of good statistical practice, it is helpful where we can to agree on definitions. My definition of
Fresh Expression is from here. The number of Christian experssions that would meet Jstinian's broader definition would far exceed those covered here.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There may be plenty of people who are content to say "we must be doing something right but buggered if I know what it is", but this is not the thread for them.
Even "we must be doing something right" isn't certain. I can remember the explosion of numbers of small left wing groups in the 70s-80s. The word 'groupuscule' was coined for them. Like some of he churches mentioned above the numbers reflected weakness not strength. The number of groups increased but overall numbers decreased and perhaps more importantly solidarity and the advantages of clout were lost.
People tend to stay on board a successful organisation of any sort. When it starts to fail you get more and more arguments about what is wrong and people start their own splinter groups which tend to have a 'cultic' base - a groupuscule of true believers around a charismatic leader with a simplified world view.
Of course every group will point out that Christianity started that way so it isn't always a sign of failure.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
So let's dig a little further. The Ashgate research referred to is essentially qualitative, but since we are on a slight tangent looking at numbers here's a few. The research consists of a number of case studies from a range of Christian expressions to illustrate church growth in the UK.
And any research that claims that churches are growing that doesn't take into account that (a) The total number of churches is declining and (b) the number of churchgoers is declining far, far faster than the number of churches is is trying to sell you something.
quote:
It notes, for example, that the Baptist Union planted around 200 churches in the 1990s, that around 14% of Baptist churches have a membership in excess of 350, and the majority of joiners do so after making a profession of faith.
Contextless factoids that are typical of most of the evangelical puffery I've seen. The 200 churches planted doesn't say how many closed. And although baptist numbers didn't do badly in the 90s, Baptist actual numbers fell by 15,000 between 2000 and 2005. All the undoubted work the Baptists are putting in is barely enough to keep their numbers stable. And the Baptists are as near a success story as there is.
quote:
Another example relates to churches planted out of church planting training colleges. Students from Victory Church Hampstead's former Bible College have planted over 100 churches in the UK.
Again I refer you to links already given. New churches being founded between 1995 and 2010 happened at half the rate it did between 1980 and 1994. Just because there are churches being planted and some people are enthusiastic doesn't mean it isn't slowly sliding into irrelevancy.
quote:
Whilst it's true that some new churches are the result of division your conclusion that this somehow undermines the claim of vibrancy in church life doesn't necessarily follow.
And vibrancy doesn't mean relevance. In 25 years between 1980 and 2005, the biggest three denominations have haemoherraged worshippers. The Anglicans lost half a million worshippers - over a third of their number. The Roman Catholics lost over a million and over half their numbers. The Methodists lost three hundred thousand and half theirs.
Even once you take out the 1.9 million worshippers lost by the big three denominations at the start of the 80s, the trend in attendance is still downward. Of the only three groupings to gain numbers, two (the Pentecostals and Orthodoxen) are associated with immigration. And the 'New Churches' haven't even picked up as many worshippers as the URC lost.
To the man in the street, the 1.9 million fewer Christians is far more indicative than the small pockets of vibrancy that are planting fewer and fewer churches.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
But if you're not living in the presence of God you're missing out on something extra.
OK, but what is that something extra? Can it be described?
I mean, if someone tells me I'm missing out by not knowing their mate John, I can ask why and be told that he's a really funny chap, always stands his round in the pub, happy to help if you've got a DIY problem at home, and so on. And based on those descriptions I can decide if John really is a chap I want to get to know. So what can we tell people about 'our mate Jesus' that might make them want to get to know Him better?
Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on
:
I surmise that people have already heard about your mate Jesus and what they've heard makes them not want to get to know him better.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
@Justinian. The Ashgate research references the decline in church numbers - your assumption that it didn't is a poor use of evidence. It also has evidence more recent than 2005.
Your suggestion that church growth is declining into irrelevancy is an absurd interpretation of the evidence. It's a little like suggestion that the UK economy is in terminal decline and social issues in the nation are turning us into a Third World nation.
The church situation in the Uk is complex. The overall decline in numbers may now have reached its nadir and begun to reverse. Church growth is more common in urban than rural areas, for example. The Ashgate research looks at case studies of growing churches. I'm assuming your training is not in social research - this may be unfamiliar territory to you.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
But if you're not living in the presence of God you're missing out on something extra.
OK, but what is that something extra? Can it be described?
Mate, I wish I could. If it were possible I would be writing excitingly-titled books about it and make literally tens of pounds selling them.
Problem is, it's relative: if I tell you it's a sense of peace then you say "well I'm peaceful...". If I tell you it's a sense of joy you say "well I'm joyful...". All I know is that it's very different from my other feelings of peace and joy.
So, lots of airy-fairy, unsubstantiable, irrational rubbish, basically.
I have a blind friend, blind since birth. She gets along just fine with her senses as they are - she goes to towns she doesn't know, finds her way to rock concerts, publishes books. She doesn't know what she's missing because she doesn't miss it.
But if I try to describe stars to her, she simply doesn't have the frame of reference to get what I'm on about: she can understand the theory, she can get the concept, but she can't grasp how you can see something that is far, far away. Her senses extend to the reach of her arms and the limit of her hearing. To imagine seeing something 6 billion light years away is, quite literally, beyond her ken.
So until she, by some medical miracle, receives perfect vision she can never know what it is like to see a star.
Same with being in relationship with God.
I mentioned that I am a reluctant Christian...well that's one reason why. It's totally irrational, but that doesn't make it invalid.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I surmise that people have already heard about your mate Jesus and what they've heard makes them not want to get to know him better.
I surmise that this is because arseholes are as well represented in Christianity as they are in general society. Unfortunately they tend to be the loud ones.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...the events of the everyday world never show any god stepping in to save any murder victim
Really? I swear I am not making this up, but I have met literally thousands, probably tens of thousands, of people who have never been murdered. How do you know God isn't stepping in?
Which is a facile way of saying: you have no proof either way. "Thieves didn't break into a Manchester house today and didn't murder the owner" hardly makes good news.
But, anyway, we could turn to the brain-in-a-jar hypothesis: you have no objective way of proving that you are not a brain in a jar being fed sensory inputs by some scientist, which only feel to you like real life. There is no way for you to prove one way or the other because your reality, your frame of reference, is part of the simulation.
What is to say that your reality is not a living construct of God? What if prayer really works, and really does heal people, but God, being outside of time, changes the whole course of history back to the beginning of time itself in order to answer your prayer? You'd have no way of knowing because your frame of reference is part of the simulation.
Of course that sounds irrational and ridiculous, but you can't disprove it. It could be happening all the time.
Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief
I am not a Christian because I find Christianity to be appealing. I am a Christian because I think it is true.
Me too. It seemed to me that Christianity should be a repeatable experiment and I found it to be so and am convinced.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I surmise that people have already heard about your mate Jesus and what they've heard makes them not want to get to know him better.
Actually Jesus doesn't sound like a bad bloke - it's some of the ones who claim to be his mate that are the problem.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
But if you're not living in the presence of God you're missing out on something extra.
OK, but what is that something extra? Can it be described?
I mean, if someone tells me I'm missing out by not knowing their mate John, I can ask why and be told that he's a really funny chap, always stands his round in the pub, happy to help if you've got a DIY problem at home, and so on. And based on those descriptions I can decide if John really is a chap I want to get to know. So what can we tell people about 'our mate Jesus' that might make them want to get to know Him better?
Some sort of random thoughts.
The problem is I can say what I've experienced of him (and I do), but that's no guarantee that other people are going to have the exact same experience. And this problem doesn't usually come up when I'm talking to nonChristians, but among Christians, sometimes I get hostility or envy or disbelief as a response. Or accused of somehow making it up, or showing off, or whatever. And I hesitate to say very much, for that reason, and because a lot of it is intensely personal.
And it's all in the Bible, anyway. I mean stuff like "he's faithful." (deep breath) My experience is that he is the only person in my life never to let me down. And before someone jumps on that, I am NOT saying that I never feel abandoned, or that he's absent, or that I'm angry with him. I have those experiences. But in the end it comes out that I realize he really was and is there, even when I was yelling at him, and he did not turn me away.
He is patient. He doesn't make fun of broken people who come to him, either behind their back or to their face. He is courteous, gentle, and kind. I never feel like I have to guard my words with him, like he's going to take offense at some stupid thing I said, or like I have to censor what I'm thinking or feeling. (And I do have to do this with other people in my life--it's a rare person who can put up with me all the time.)
He's good to talk to. He can shut up and be quiet when you need him to, when you just need to talk. He can communicate (though it takes some practice I think, hearing him) and he doesn't waste words. He also doesn't flatter or lie to me, even when I want him to (ouch). But at least that means there's someone who will tell me when I'm going badly off the rails.
He's not into gossip, backstabbing, nasty digs at people, or running people down. If you are (and aren't we all, to some extent?) then you will feel uncomfortable in his presence when you do that shit. But it will be the kind of silence that makes you want to do better--not the kind that rejects you as a worthless piece of crap.
He believes in me (and all his people). He knows I can do x difficult scary challenge, even when I believe I can't, and he is willing to lend me a hand. Not without a lot of hard work and oh crap oh crap oh CRAP moments. But he sees me through. And when I fail, he is patient and picks me up and tells me to try again. And puts up with my hissy fits when I just.don't.want.to.
He LIKES me. Which is vanishingly rare in real life, or at least in my gut I secretly believe it is, or ought to be. I haven't a clue why he should get any pleasure out of having me around, but he clearly DOES (freaking weird idea) and it's nice to be wanted. Much better than being tolerated by someone who secretly wishes you'd go away. (But it took me years to realize for real that mere tolerance isn't how he feels about me.)
He is not comprehensible, that's the downside. He will do things, and allow things, that I would never do or allow (at least with the understanding I currently have) and he doesn't have to explain himself to me. And he won't. Okay, occasionally something will happen after the fact that makes me glad it turned out that way, after all--but there's no guarantee of that, and he feels no responsibility to satisfy my curiosity. When I complain he says "trust me" and occasionally "that's not your business, get on with what you're supposed to be focusing on." That annoys the hell out of me.
He also has a painful habit of seeming to vanish when you want him most--when some disaster has happened, or you are having painful doubts, or something. If you hang on long enough he comes back (actually, you realize he never left, was just very very quiet), but even though I admit the theoretical benefit of teaching me to walk by faith and not by emotions, whenever it happens I feel abandoned. And I worry that this time he'll not come back.
He is not predictable in that way. (In other ways, yes) And you can't manipulate him, however you try. That is ffrustrating.
But in the end, I'm happier that he is a God who is bigger than I am, even though it has all the downsides mentioned above.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think that without the facts which would obviate the need for faith, then how can Christianity be better than the scientific reality which can be accessed on TV, radio and the internet? Those who prefer to have faith that God and Jesus are providing support are underestimating the power, strength and resourcefulness , as well as the imagination, of our human evolved brains.
You fall into the same fallacy as many who argue this: you assume Christianity is about assent to a set of propositions which, if falsified, would falsify Christianity.
No, I do not assume that it is an 'assent to a set of propositions', I can see from the knowledge we now have and from past and present history that christianity is a religion based on a belief that there is a God and that one particular man is believed to have lived, died and then to have been resurrected. This is the one aspect about it that requires faith without evidence.
quote:
The problem with that logic is that the premise is flawed. Christianity is not about assent to a set of propositions.
What do you say are those 'propositions'?
quote:
Scientific understanding is marvellous. I am awed by our expanding knowledge of the universe and by the clever bods who provide me with my weekly digest in New Scientist. I've read and understood original research on evolution and consider it an exemplary way to describe the descent of species. I've argued creationists to silence on why their beliefs are untenable. I'm not a scientist, but I am a very well-educated lay person.
Okay, no argument there! I listen to the audio New Scientist and continue to learn a lot.
quote:
None of that has any bearing on my Christianity.
But why not? How can you keep your Christianity separate from everything else, from the one piece of information that would remove it from a faith-without-evidence position?
quote:
For many reasons I consider myself one of the most reluctant Christians on the planet but I find that my life is better when I spend it with my perceived God than without.
How would your life be even slightly worse if you simply accepted that the God you perceive is a wholly human idea?
quote:
I echo C.S. Lewis: I love Christ the way I love the sun; not because I can see it, but because by it every thing else can be seen more clearly.
Unsuprisingly, I disagree! To add an unnecessarycomplexity blurs clarity.
quote:
Anyone can be nice to people: we should all aspire to be humanists. But if you're not living in the presence of God you're missing out on something extra.
whatever you think it is that non-believers are missing out on, why do you think that it cannot be articulated clearly enough to convince?
quote:
Unfortunately that's a hard thing to sell to the man on the street.
That's because it is the only thing that is required to be believed with faith only.
I think my great joy in life is knowing that I'm doing the best I can, but that I am responsible for all I do. If I need help, it is other humans who provide it, and in spite of all its ups and downs, I'm so very glad I've had - fortunately, 'still having' - a life.!
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
...". All I know is that it's very different from my other feelings of peace and joy.
****
I have a blind friend, blind since birth. She gets along just fine with her senses as they are - she goes to towns she doesn't know, finds her way to rock concerts, publishes books. She doesn't know what she's missing because she doesn't miss it.
But if I try to describe stars to her, she simply doesn't have the frame of reference to get what I'm on about: she can understand the theory, she can get the concept, but she can't grasp how you can see something that is far, far away. Her senses extend to the reach of her arms and the limit of her hearing. To imagine seeing something 6 billion light years away is, quite literally, beyond her ken.
The difference is that she cannot imagine it in the same way that a sighted person can. she will imagine it in her own way, but she knows from other sources that what you are saying is true and evidenced. She does not need faith to accept what you say.
quote:
Same with being in relationship with God.
Except that all those who consider themselves to be in a relationship with God cannot say with certainty that they are experiencing it in the same way as any other person.
How about trying to be a reluctant humanist instead?!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Flossymole:
It seemed to me that Christianity should be a repeatable experiment and I found it to be so and am convinced.
Whereas I have found it to be very much not repeatable.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
Susan D wrote
quote:
Except that all those who consider themselves to be in a relationship with God cannot say with certainty that they are experiencing it in the same way as any other person.
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
"See how happy the fish are", said Chung Tzu, looking into the stream.
"Since you aren't a fish, you can't tell if they are happy", said the disciple.
"Since you aren't me, you can't tell whether of not I know the fish are happy", said Chung Tzu.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
"See how happy the fish are", said Chung Tzu, looking into the stream.
"Since you aren't a fish, you can't tell if they are happy", said the disciple.
"Since you aren't me, you can't tell whether of not I know the fish are happy", said Chung Tzu.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Some sort of random thoughts.
The problem is I can say what I've experienced of him (and I do), but that's no guarantee that other people are going to have the exact same experience. And this problem doesn't usually come up when I'm talking to nonChristians, but among Christians, sometimes I get hostility or envy or disbelief as a response. Or accused of somehow making it up, or showing off, or whatever. And I hesitate to say very much, for that reason, and because a lot of it is intensely personal.
And it's all in the Bible, anyway. I mean stuff like "he's faithful." (deep breath) My experience is that he is the only person in my life never to let me down. And before someone jumps on that, I am NOT saying that I never feel abandoned, or that he's absent, or that I'm angry with him. I have those experiences. But in the end it comes out that I realize he really was and is there, even when I was yelling at him, and he did not turn me away.
He is patient. He doesn't make fun of broken people who come to him, either behind their back or to their face. He is courteous, gentle, and kind. I never feel like I have to guard my words with him, like he's going to take offense at some stupid thing I said, or like I have to censor what I'm thinking or feeling. (And I do have to do this with other people in my life--it's a rare person who can put up with me all the time.)
He's good to talk to. He can shut up and be quiet when you need him to, when you just need to talk. He can communicate (though it takes some practice I think, hearing him) and he doesn't waste words. He also doesn't flatter or lie to me, even when I want him to (ouch). But at least that means there's someone who will tell me when I'm going badly off the rails.
He's not into gossip, backstabbing, nasty digs at people, or running people down. If you are (and aren't we all, to some extent?) then you will feel uncomfortable in his presence when you do that shit. But it will be the kind of silence that makes you want to do better--not the kind that rejects you as a worthless piece of crap.
He believes in me (and all his people). He knows I can do x difficult scary challenge, even when I believe I can't, and he is willing to lend me a hand. Not without a lot of hard work and oh crap oh crap oh CRAP moments. But he sees me through. And when I fail, he is patient and picks me up and tells me to try again. And puts up with my hissy fits when I just.don't.want.to.
He LIKES me. Which is vanishingly rare in real life, or at least in my gut I secretly believe it is, or ought to be. I haven't a clue why he should get any pleasure out of having me around, but he clearly DOES (freaking weird idea) and it's nice to be wanted. Much better than being tolerated by someone who secretly wishes you'd go away. (But it took me years to realize for real that mere tolerance isn't how he feels about me.)
He is not comprehensible, that's the downside. He will do things, and allow things, that I would never do or allow (at least with the understanding I currently have) and he doesn't have to explain himself to me. And he won't. Okay, occasionally something will happen after the fact that makes me glad it turned out that way, after all--but there's no guarantee of that, and he feels no responsibility to satisfy my curiosity. When I complain he says "trust me" and occasionally "that's not your business, get on with what you're supposed to be focusing on." That annoys the hell out of me.
He also has a painful habit of seeming to vanish when you want him most--when some disaster has happened, or you are having painful doubts, or something. If you hang on long enough he comes back (actually, you realize he never left, was just very very quiet), but even though I admit the theoretical benefit of teaching me to walk by faith and not by emotions, whenever it happens I feel abandoned. And I worry that this time he'll not come back.
He is not predictable in that way. (In other ways, yes) And you can't manipulate him, however you try. That is ffrustrating.
But in the end, I'm happier that he is a God who is bigger than I am, even though it has all the downsides mentioned above.
Thank you, I find your posts very affirming as you so often describe what I experience.
It's only the paragraph about seeming to vanish when you want him the most that I would tweak. I agree that he does, and that at those times I do feel abandoned. When I realise that he was there all the time, I fall in that he wasn't being quiet, but I wasn't listening as I was so full of myself that I had shut him out.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That can happen. But a lot of times it seems that one of the steps on the way to spiritual maturity is getting that "shut out, nobody home" feeling and managing to make it through. Which hurts like hell.
I'm sort of thinking for no particular reason about the way I took my kid shopping today and asked him (mid-store) to go fetch three limes from the produce section and meet me at the far end of the building. Which is about the size of a football stadium (okay, maybe not quite, but still...)
He was scared, mostly due to some anxiety issues in other parts of his life. I told him to go on anyway.
I was scared too, but mainly because of some extremely high profile kidnapping stuff that has gone on in my town during the past couple years. But it'll only harm the kid if I don't encourage him to work past his fears.
So I asked him to go, and then stood there for what seemed like a zillion years at the meeting place. He turned up, of course. And I did my best to act like I wasn't worried about why it took him so bloody long.
I imagine it must feel like that to God when he has to let go our hands at times in order to help us grow.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think that without the facts which would obviate the need for faith, then how can Christianity be better than the scientific reality which can be accessed on TV, radio and the internet? Those who prefer to have faith that God and Jesus are providing support are underestimating the power, strength and resourcefulness , as well as the imagination, of our human evolved brains.
You fall into the same fallacy as many who argue this: you assume Christianity is about assent to a set of propositions which, if falsified, would falsify Christianity.
No, I do not assume that it is an 'assent to a set of propositions'
Ok, maybe I read too much into your text:
quote:
how can Christianity be better than the scientific reality which can be accessed...
I read that as a tacit "scientific reality has shown Christian facts to be false or limited", hence my treating it as though you were counterpointing Christianity with science.
I think scientific reality is beautiful and complete (or at least, having the potential to be complete) in its description of the universe. I see no gaps into which God needs inserting. However I think God created the frame of reference in which science works to describe. I have no evidence for this.
quote:
quote:
None of that has any bearing on my Christianity.
But why not? How can you keep your Christianity separate from everything else, from the one piece of information that would remove it from a faith-without-evidence position?
What is this 'information' of which you speak?
My Christianity isn't based in evidence, hence the reluctance of this otherwise rational chap, but in subjective experience.
quote:
How would your life be even slightly worse if you simply accepted that the God you perceive is a wholly human idea?
How would your life be worse if you realised and accepted you were actually hooked into the Matrix? Would you not want to break out of your false, yet comforting, 'reality' and see life as it really is, warts and all?
My life would likely be considerably easier if I didn't believe in God. For one thing, my wife and I would not be about to give up two higher-tax-bracket jobs to volunteer for a charity in Africa for three years with two young kids...
"Better" and "worse" are subjective concepts and depend upon where you place your value and priority.
quote:
To add an unnecessary complexity blurs clarity.
Me and Occam are old mates. But why is God complex? If we get away from thinking of God as some sort of answer to anything, then it's not complex at all.
quote:
How about trying to be a reluctant humanist instead?!
Oh, I'm a whole-hearted, sold-out, shout-it-from-the-rooftops humanist. It's the bizarre God bit I am reluctant about...
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Susan D wrote
quote:
Except that all those who consider themselves to be in a relationship with God cannot say with certainty that they are experiencing it in the same way as any other person.
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
It is true that I cannot say that I experience reality in exactly the same way, but reality can be seen, measured, analysed, tested, etc etc and I think that makes it objective.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
What is this 'information' of which you speak?
One piece of objective evidence!
quote:
My Christianity isn't based in evidence, hence the reluctance of this otherwise rational chap, but in subjective experience.
What other thing in your life do you base on an entirely subjective view?
quote:
How would your life be worse if you realised and accepted you were actually hooked into the Matrix? Would you not want to break out of your false, yet comforting, 'reality' and see life as it really is, warts and all?
It was the erasing of the god idea from the very small space it occupied in my brain that removed any false idea of reality. In fact, I have always been one for facing reality, warts and all, and will continue to do so. I do not delude myself into thinking there is some 'comforting' alternative reality. I realise I am very lucky to have been born and lived in the time and the circumstances I have.
quote:
My life would likely be considerably easier if I didn't believe in God. For one thing, my wife and I would not be about to give up two higher-tax-bracket jobs to volunteer for a charity in Africa for three years with two young kids...
I much admire your decision and hope that all works out well. I wouldlike to ask, however, Do you think it is belief in God that has helped you make this decision? Do you think the God you believe in knows what you are doing and why? How would you know this?
From a non-believer point of view, I would also be interested to know, if the job is definitely a Christian-religion-based one and, if so, are the children already believers in the Christian God? If they are not, would you try to 'guide/lead/ them to believe? And the crunch question for me: Would you tell them that God is true? How would you justify this?
And I'l understand if you choose not to answer.
quote:
Me and Occam are old mates. But why is God complex? If we get away from thinking of God as some sort of answer to anything, then it's not complex at all.
But all believers think they know what God thinks, wants, doesn't like, etc. They have to work these things out for themselves, based on words in books. This brings us to the infinite regression question - if God can do, think, help, etc, then who created god? No need to answer that one either!
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Susan D wrote
quote:
Except that all those who consider themselves to be in a relationship with God cannot say with certainty that they are experiencing it in the same way as any other person.
As a matter of interest, how do you know you experience reality in the same way as any other person?
I don't. This is self-evident. But I experience it in a close enough way that words have meanings we can share, and we can even discuss what the differences are in the way we experience realty.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
What is this 'information' of which you speak?
One piece of objective evidence!
Then we are back to thinking about some set of propositions which are provable or disprovable. The God hypothesis isn't provable or disprovable. OK, you can disprove a lot of crap which a lot of the religious hold dear, like young-earth creation, but as for God: it's in principle unprovable. Hence subjective.
quote:
I do not delude myself into thinking there is some 'comforting' alternative reality.
What's comforting about it? I find it extremely discomfiting. I'm not in Christianity for the comfort (see next point).
quote:
I much admire your decision [to do charity work] and hope that all works out well. I would like to ask, however, Do you think it is belief in God that has helped you make this decision?
It is belief in God which has catalysed this decision. I'm not sure I would have the impetus or would care enough to do it otherwise. And I think God is smoothing the way: for example, in what other situation could you generate £75,000 without trying or asking anyone for money?
quote:
are [your] children already believers in the Christian God? If they are not, would you try to 'guide/lead/ them to believe? And the crunch question for me: Would you tell them that God is true? How would you justify this?
They are believers in God in the same way they are supporters of the Labour party: their parents are and so they get swept up in it. Do I tell them God is true? I tell them I believe God is true, but I am making every attempt to bring them up as critical thinkers so they can make their own minds up once they are sophisticated enough.
quote:
all believers think they know what God thinks, wants, doesn't like, etc. They have to work these things out for themselves, based on words in books.
I don't have the faintest clue what God wants or likes or thinks. If I did I would be God. I take a basically humanist view and use my critical faculties in assessing what other people think God thinks. Anyone who claims to know what God thinks about a particular subject should be treated with the utmost suspicion, and possibly as an idolater.
I don't think the bible is the word of God, but it is a useful records of man's evolving relationship with God (Old Testament) and a fairly plausible historical account of the spread of the followers of Christ (New Testament).
quote:
This brings us to the infinite regression question - if God can do, think, help, etc, then who created god?
I don't see how this brings us to the infinite regression question, but since you ask...
Why does God need to have been made? You're thinking in a reductionist manner. Why does God need a beginning? We only think that because we can't properly comprehend the infinite.
Space, time, and matter were created at the moment of the big bang but they were created into a pre-existing medium. Does that medium have to have been created? If the answer to this is no (and that is Stephen Hawking's opinion) then why is God a special case of something needing creating?
It's turtles all the way down.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
IntellectByProxy
Very good post. The stuff about 'objective evidence' comes up again and again like a rash. It always amazes me, as it is asking for naturalistic evidence for something which has never been claimed to be naturalistic.
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
The only theists who argue for that, as far as I can see, are Mormons. Yet atheists seem stuck in that groove; I guess it is confirmation bias!
The odd thing about the infinite regress idea - who creates God - is that materialists and naturalists seem quite happy with a universe which exists as a brute fact. In other words, it has no source.
[ 24. October 2012, 14:32: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
IBP
Sorry, just realized that you had already said that, about the infinite regress!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Intellect By Proxy
Many thanks for your thoughtful and interesting response; much appreciated.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
IntellectByProxy
Very good post. The stuff about 'objective evidence' comes up again and again like a rash.
Well, that's because there is zero testable, call it whatever you choose, evidence for the Abrahamic God or any others. All of us have a varietyh of experiences throughout our lives and those who believe in God attribute some of them to something that god has done, or given, etc.
quote:
It always amazes me, as it is asking for naturalistic evidence for something which has never been claimed to be naturalistic.
that is an interesting idea - if it has not been claimed to be naturalistic, I'm not quite sure what it has been claimed to be. Okay, I should probably know the answer to this, but can't think of it at the moment!
quote:
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
Would you accept that it is the only thing which you, i.e. all believers, cannot explain to non-believers other than by personal, subjective testimony?
quote:
In other words, it has no source.
I don't think atheists say there is no source, only that at the point when the universe(s) began, it is impossible to say what there was before. The probability of it being any god, let alone the Christian one, is surely 0.0+a million 0s and then a 1?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
Would you accept that it is the only thing which you, i.e. all believers, cannot explain to non-believers other than by personal, subjective testimony?
Well, I wouldn't. There are quite a few things for which we have no evidence other than our experiences and observations as humans and our personal, subjective testimony, and which I think defy testing by the scientific method. Love comes to mind as one example.
quote:
quote:
In other words, it has no source.
I don't think atheists say there is no source, only that at the point when the universe(s) began, it is impossible to say what there was before. The probability of it being any god, let alone the Christian one, is surely 0.0+a million 0s and then a 1?
Why surely? Why is that less likely than the probability that all of the necessary conditions for life as we know it to exist on this planet happened by accident?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
My point was simply that if atheists raise the question of an infinite regress (who made God?), then how do they get out of it in relation to the universe? Does that have a source? Well, what made that?
In other words, atheists tend to accept the universe as a brute fact, which may in fact, be uncaused. Or the cause of the universe may be uncaused.
Or is there an infinite regress here?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
SusanDoris wrote:
if it has not been claimed to be naturalistic, I'm not quite sure what it has been claimed to be. Okay, I should probably know the answer to this, but can't think of it at the moment!
But seriously, do atheists ask for evidence because they think that God is a material thing, or an item in the universe? I can't believe this.
Surely, most atheists are aware that God has been seen as immaterial - without body, parts or passions?
Or am I living in a strange upside down world, where atheists see God as a very large bloke with a cape?
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
Quetzalcoat: for the point of clarity, I'm not comfortable with the the idea that "atheists think the universe is a brute fact". As far as I know, the universe being a brute fact isn't part of the Atheist Required Belief Set. Moreover I, as a theist, think the universe is a brute fact, so there shouldn't be an implied dichotomy here.
The fact of the universe being brute is not what divides theists from atheists...
As to subjective experience: one's whole world view is subjective; I refer the honourable lady to the previous brain-in-a-jar hypothesis.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Quetzalcoat: for the point of clarity, I'm not comfortable with the the idea that "atheists think the universe is a brute fact". As far as I know, the universe being a brute fact isn't part of the Atheist Required Belief Set. Moreover I, as a theist, think the universe is a brute fact, so there shouldn't be an implied dichotomy here.
The fact of the universe being brute is not what divides theists from atheists...
As to subjective experience: one's whole world view is subjective; I refer the honourable lady to the previous brain-in-a-jar hypothesis.
Well, you are quote-mining me a bit there, aren't you, since I said that 'atheists tend to see the universe as a brute fact, which may in fact, be uncaused. Or the cause of the universe may be uncaused'.
I think the subordinate clauses which you stripped out do affect the meaning. Well, subordinate clauses usually do.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
((Took me a while to get all the bits that should be in bold to be in bold! )
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Well, I wouldn't. There are quite a few things for which we have no evidence other than our experiences and observations as humans and our personal, subjective testimony, and which I think defy testing by the scientific method. Love comes to mind as one example.
There is a Richard Dawkins book, mainly aimed at younger people, called 'The Magic of Reality'. I have started listening to it, and one of the earliest things he mentions is love and how it is not only subjective, but can be explained in terms of our biology etc. This does not lessen its wonder and value, but makes it more amazing really, in my opinion.
quote:
quote:
In other words, it has no source.
I don't think atheists say there is no source, only that at the point when the universe(s) began, it is impossible to say what there was before. The probability of it being any god, let alone the Christian one, is surely 0.0+a million 0s and then a 1?
quote:
Why surely? Why is that less likely than the probability that all of the necessary conditions for life as we know it to exist on this planet happened by accident?
If, and that is a huge if of course, you suppose there was God before it all, then you have to say that 'he' chose one little planet somewhere, set up a system which after millions of years would come to a point where the evolutionary process produced a branch of the ape family which, having acquired language, decided eventually to call itself homo sapiens sapiens .... well, that's why!! The conclusion that it happened by chance and that humans, because of their evolved capacity for working out reasons for things chose to decide that it must have been gods, is the most probable?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The conclusion that it happened by chance and that humans, because of their evolved capacity for working out reasons for things chose to decide that it must have been gods, is the most probable?
Both seem equally probable to me. Millions of years wouldn't be the big deal for God that it is for us, would it?
And the problem of 'chance' will always be 'why'? It's very hard to see all this as having no purpose.
Back to the OP. I can be a Christian (A follower of Christ and his teachings) without being sure of any of the cosmic stuff, can I not?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
SusanDoris wrote:
if it has not been claimed to be naturalistic, I'm not quite sure what it has been claimed to be. Okay, I should probably know the answer to this, but can't think of it at the moment!
But seriously, do atheists ask for evidence because they think that God is a material thing, or an item in the universe? I can't believe this.
No, I think most atheists simply do not think of God as anything, since they totally lack belief in its existence, or need for its existence. I certainly used to believe firmly in a God/force/power somewhere 'out there' but this faded and lessened and finally vanished.
In my opinion, there must have been atheists right from the very first time someone said that because fire and noise had come from the mountain, said mountain must be angry. From then on, the idea of gods has answered questions of natural events. Those ancient atheists must have thought, 'Hmm, that doesn't sound quite right....'
Since then, each civilisation has thought of such unexplainable powers in different ways and sought to placate them with worship etc. This has obviously been a strongly important element in human development and because of its long, long history, will always be - and must be seen to be free to be - a part of our lives.
quote:
Surely, most atheists are aware that God has been seen as immaterial - without body, parts or passions?
Yes, I agree.
quote:
Or am I living in a strange upside down world, where atheists see God as a very large bloke with a cape?
That's probably where we all are! However, I think I am fairly safe in saying that atheists in general understand that all gods are human creations.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
If of course, you suppose there was God before it all, then you have to say that 'he' chose one little planet somewhere, set up a system which after millions of years would come to a point where the evolutionary process produced a branch of the ape family which, having acquired language, decided eventually to call itself homo sapiens sapiens .... well, that's why!! The conclusion that it happened by chance and that humans, because of their evolved capacity for working out reasons for things chose to decide that it must have been gods, is the most probable?
Some thing or some condition set things up so that over billions of years this universe evolved life. I suspect that life has arisen countless times on countless planets throughout this universe.
The processes that arrive at life are anything but random. Evolution isn't random, and, as far as I know, evolutionary biologist get very sniffy when it is described as such: evolution is constrained by input conditions and is therefore not random.
The input conditions, therefore, are important. I think we can agree that there is some pre-existing rule set which has set our universe up to enable life. What you choose to call that rule set is up to you. I choose to call it God.
If you don't invoke intelligence behind it then you have to invoke infinity: an infinite number of universes have existed and it just so happens that we live in the one that happened to have conditions favourable to life.
Doesn't Occam's razor lead you to choose one agent (God) over an infinity of agents (chance)? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Personally, I think quantum mechanics is the study of the ongoing work of God. In quantum experiments things work differently depending on whether an intelligence is observing the task or not: e.g. in the double slit experiment, if you try to determine which slit the photon is going to go through the interference pattern immediately breaks down and you get a classical result. That happens regardless of how cunningly the observation is made. Current experiments are suggesting that that happens in a time-independent manner (i.e. an observation in the future can affect the result in the past).
Kinda makes me think that God only works when humans are looking the other way...
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There is a Richard Dawkins book, mainly aimed at younger people, called 'The Magic of Reality'. I have started listening to it, and one of the earliest things he mentions is love and how it is not only subjective, but can be explained in terms of our biology etc. This does not lessen its wonder and value, but makes it more amazing really, in my opinion.
That rather avoids the question, though, I think. That explains love -- the biological and other things going on the brain that "produce" what we call love. But that's not what I was talking about. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could be, but I was talking about the existence, in specific instances, of love.
The question you posed and to which I was responding, was whether believers would "accept that [the existence of God] is the only thing which [we] cannot explain to non-believers other than by personal, subjective testimony?"
My response is that I ask you accept that my wife loves me. I can only offer you personal, subjective testimony on that, but I know it to be true. Yes, there is "hard evidence" that might be seen as supporting my statement -- gifts, things she does for me, etc. -- but those could have other explanations. Perhaps it's all a good act for my money. (And that's a mjor hypothetical there. ) We've all known relationships that appeared to be loving when in fact they really weren't.
So when it boils down to it, the only real evidence I can offer is simply that I know she does. Dawkins may explain what is going on biologically. But the more basic question can only be answered by my personal, subjective testimony.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The conclusion that it happened by chance and that humans, because of their evolved capacity for working out reasons for things chose to decide that it must have been gods, is the most probable?
Both seem equally probable to me. Millions of years wouldn't be the big deal for God that it is for us, would it?
Exactly. Both scenarios -- creation by God or happening by chance -- have their probablity challenges. I recall hearing one scientist on NPR (sorry, I can't remember who, but I do remember that while a Christian he was not a creationist -- I pay little head to them) pegging the probablity of all conditions for life developing as we know it on Earth actually occuring at <.01%. Hence my quibble with the suggestion that it is "surely" more probable that it all happened by chance without a God.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
IntellectByProxy
Very good post. The stuff about 'objective evidence' comes up again and again like a rash. It always amazes me, as it is asking for naturalistic evidence for something which has never been claimed to be naturalistic.
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
The only theists who argue for that, as far as I can see, are Mormons. Yet atheists seem stuck in that groove; I guess it is confirmation bias!
The odd thing about the infinite regress idea - who creates God - is that materialists and naturalists seem quite happy with a universe which exists as a brute fact. In other words, it has no source.
This is an ahistorical claim and attempt to deny that a long running argument has been lost catastrophically. Aquinas believed that God could be demonstrated by "the argument from motion", "the nature of the efficient cause", "possibility and necessity", "gradation" - the idea that some things are better than others, and "the governance of the world". The idea that you can find God in nature and objective evidence for God is a long-standing Christian one and only really was undermined by Darwin*.
Atheists therefore keep asking for objective evidence for the same reason Christians claimed to have some for a millenium and a half. Because God's existance is important and would have serious consequences for the universe. And the modern Christian insistance that God's existance is so practically meaningless there is no objective evidence that can be presented for it sounds like nothing more than "We know we lost that argument. So now we're going to claim it doesn't mean anything. You may have beaten us but it now means nothing. Because we say so."
* No, not Galilleo. He was just an all-round git who called the Pope an idiot in print when the Pope was his only patron.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
IntellectByProxy
Very good post. The stuff about 'objective evidence' comes up again and again like a rash. It always amazes me, as it is asking for naturalistic evidence for something which has never been claimed to be naturalistic.
How can atheists keep asking for objective evidence? Presumably, they have in mind some kind of physical entity, which is God? Or God is an item in the universe?
The only theists who argue for that, as far as I can see, are Mormons. Yet atheists seem stuck in that groove; I guess it is confirmation bias!
The odd thing about the infinite regress idea - who creates God - is that materialists and naturalists seem quite happy with a universe which exists as a brute fact. In other words, it has no source.
This is an ahistorical claim and attempt to deny that a long running argument has been lost catastrophically. Aquinas believed that God could be demonstrated by "the argument from motion", "the nature of the efficient cause", "possibility and necessity", "gradation" - the idea that some things are better than others, and "the governance of the world". The idea that you can find God in nature and objective evidence for God is a long-standing Christian one and only really was undermined by Darwin*.
Atheists therefore keep asking for objective evidence for the same reason Christians claimed to have some for a millenium and a half. Because God's existance is important and would have serious consequences for the universe. And the modern Christian insistance that God's existance is so practically meaningless there is no objective evidence that can be presented for it sounds like nothing more than "We know we lost that argument. So now we're going to claim it doesn't mean anything. You may have beaten us but it now means nothing. Because we say so."
* No, not Galilleo. He was just an all-round git who called the Pope an idiot in print when the Pope was his only patron.
I think your points are true of some versions of theistic personalism. My understanding is that classical theism was not based on evidential grounds in the same way, and is still not.
I would say that some atheists, at any rate, ask for evidence, including scientific evidence, because they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. In fact, if you ask some of them, what they mean by 'evidence', they get quite bashful, as they begin to see their own presuppositions looming up like an iceberg in the mist.
However, must pause, in the middle of din-dins.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Justinian
Your stuff about the various arguments for God is biting off too much, to my mind. Going down that road is to embark on a whole historical survey.
My view is that many atheists are imprisoned within naturalistic (and in many cases, materialist) ideas, and therefore can only discuss religion from within those 'mind forg'd manacles'.
Hence, the request for 'objective evidence', which treats God as a natural phenomenon, or an item in the universe.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Justinian
Your stuff about the various arguments for God is biting off too much, to my mind. Going down that road is to embark on a whole historical survey.
My view is that many atheists are imprisoned within naturalistic (and in many cases, materialist) ideas, and therefore can only discuss religion from within those 'mind forg'd manacles'.
Hence, the request for 'objective evidence', which treats God as a natural phenomenon, or an item in the universe.
And mine is that the approach you suggest is nothing more than special pleading.
The request for objective evidence doesn't treat God as a natural phenomenon. It assumes that God actually does something. We can test whether prayer actually heals by comparing patients being prayed for and those not (outcome: it doesn't help those who don't know they are being prayed for and hurts those who do). We can see when something moves or any physical force.
The request for objective evidence is a request to show that God isn't completely irrelevant for anything in this world. Or that the next world exists and isn't the sort of pie in the sky fantasy (or revenge fantasy) that people might want to think up.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Justinian
Your stuff about the various arguments for God is biting off too much, to my mind. Going down that road is to embark on a whole historical survey.
My view is that many atheists are imprisoned within naturalistic (and in many cases, materialist) ideas, and therefore can only discuss religion from within those 'mind forg'd manacles'.
Hence, the request for 'objective evidence', which treats God as a natural phenomenon, or an item in the universe.
And mine is that the approach you suggest is nothing more than special pleading.
The request for objective evidence doesn't treat God as a natural phenomenon. It assumes that God actually does something. We can test whether prayer actually heals by comparing patients being prayed for and those not (outcome: it doesn't help those who don't know they are being prayed for and hurts those who do). We can see when something moves or any physical force.
The request for objective evidence is a request to show that God isn't completely irrelevant for anything in this world. Or that the next world exists and isn't the sort of pie in the sky fantasy (or revenge fantasy) that people might want to think up.
But your 'God actually does something' seems to mean 'God alters the physical world in some way', does it not?
I would say that God creates and sustains the whole of reality; however, surely God also preserves the integrity of the physical world. Otherwise, if God kept intervening in physical terms, it would be a magical reality, and therefore unintelligible.
The question as to whether God is irrelevant is something that the individual has to decide. For myself, God is present, and that is relevant for me.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But your 'God actually does something' seems to mean 'God alters the physical world in some way', does it not?
I would say that God creates and sustains the whole of reality; however, surely God also preserves the integrity of the physical world. Otherwise, if God kept intervening in physical terms, it would be a magical reality, and therefore unintelligible.
The question as to whether God is irrelevant is something that the individual has to decide. For myself, God is present, and that is relevant for me.
So your God is utterly indistinguishable from Snorfl where Snorfl has the property that it is the force that binds the universe together and never does anything else.
I see no difference between you and an out and out deist who says "God set the universe in motion and then wandered off after paying the electricity bill for it". If your beliefs are correct then the Incarnation is contrary to the nature of God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But your 'God actually does something' seems to mean 'God alters the physical world in some way', does it not?
I would say that God creates and sustains the whole of reality; however, surely God also preserves the integrity of the physical world. Otherwise, if God kept intervening in physical terms, it would be a magical reality, and therefore unintelligible.
The question as to whether God is irrelevant is something that the individual has to decide. For myself, God is present, and that is relevant for me.
So your God is utterly indistinguishable from Snorfl where Snorfl has the property that it is the force that binds the universe together and never does anything else.
I see no difference between you and an out and out deist who says "God set the universe in motion and then wandered off after paying the electricity bill for it". If your beliefs are correct then the Incarnation is contrary to the nature of God.
I don't know much about deism. I don't know if deists see God as present, for example, although that sounds unlikely if he 'wandered off'.
Same with Snorfl. Is she present for you?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0