Thread: The Church, without God. 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=029647
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
Imagine this scenario...
It is a Sunday, but not any typical Sunday, it is the Sunday after 'The Event'.
This 'Event' turned the world on it's head, it was the day that something happened that categorically proved to every human on earth that there is no God.
Let's not go into the nature of the event, or even if such an event could even be possible, for the sake of the scenario let's just assume it did.
My question is, on this Sunday, and the weeks and months and years that follow what would happen to the Church.
What shape would it take, what shape COULD it take? Would it even continue to exist? What would it's function be, and how could it adapt?
Neil
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
Initially, churches would no doubt still meet, if only for people to support each other in the aftermath of such an event.
Longer term, maybe some churches would re-form themselves into social action organisations? Much good work has been done in this area, would the lack of God be a reason to abandon it?
If the lack of God would cause people to abandon good works, that’s another topic in itself.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
My question is, on this Sunday, and the weeks and months and years that follow what would happen to the Church.
Well, in your scenario, I wouldn't be showing up to worship someone I knew didn't exist, and I don't suppose many other people would, either.
Sunday meeting atheist "churches" seem to be of minority interest - I don't see the church continuing on those lines.
Your scenario would leave the churches as custodians of a lot of buildings - some of historical/architectural merit, and some not, and in at least some churches, a lot of cash.
I think most people are basically decent, and that the basically decent people would want to oversee an orderly winding-down of the church's finances, with appropriate disposal of its assets.
A lot of church buildings would become community meeting halls and the like; there would be a lot of wrangling over which charities should benefit, and a significant number of scumbags trying to make a quick buck.
The charity issue raises other questions - many charities are Christian, and may or may not be able to keep their eye on the ball when the whole world decides simultaneously that Christ is a lie.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A lot of church buildings would become community meeting halls and the like;
Round here they'd either become student flats, or would be bulldozed to make way for car parks.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
Mass wouldn't have much meaning. The Host would not be the Body of Christ. if the priest was there, I would be surprised. Or maybe not, because I wouldn't be there to see if she turned up or not.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I cannot imagine what could happen that would prove the non-existence of God.
In any case, this would make no difference to the non-theistic religions.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I cannot imagine what could happen that would prove the non-existence of God.
I think it would have to be some sort of global mind control thing orchestrated by the Illuminati, or perhaps by aliens....
What would happen to a bunch of half-empty church buildings in an already secularised Western country would be the very least of our troubles at that point!
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I cannot imagine what could happen that would prove the non-existence of God.
Discovery of the Babel Fish?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I cannot imagine what could happen that would prove the non-existence of God.
It would have to be about as incredible as the event that could prove the EXISTENCE of God. In other words, you'd come away from it believing, if not in God, then still something pretty freaking out of this world.
[ 09. February 2016, 15:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Read the OPs plea to avoid that line and knew it would be ignored. But even my cynical mind is a bit surprised it didn't last even 10 posts.
but anyway
Churches would have an immediate mass loss of members, with a few hanging on in shock. Those would soon disappear and then the arguing what do do with the buildings would begin.
Though churches serve a community function as well as religious, the modern world doesn't need them too.
i don't think the fate of the churches (institutions) or churches (communities) is a great mystery. They would become cultural artifacts quite quickly.
More interesting, to me, would be the psychological aftermath. But this is a tangent as well.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
A clergy person told me we cannot know if God exists because if there is a God, God is so different from us we cannot know anything about God. But, he said, the ritual is beautiful in itself and must be preserved for that reason whether or not there's any God.
(TEC, roughly 1990)
Many/most humans seem to "need" ritual, we do flag ceremonies and scout ceremonies and Masonic ceremonies and holiday rituals (often labeled "traditions" rather than "rituals").
If all churches closed something else would pop up to satisfy the need for ritual.
More likely than all churches closing, some churches would stay open as long as they could afford the site, evolving into lecture or concert or debate or performance art societies or as someone said social groups or social service groups.
YMCA started as a Christian group, Yale university started as a school for clergy if I remember right, March of Dimes goal used to be cure polio; nothing unusual about an existing well functioning organization evolving in purpose or even intentionally finding a different purpose and continuing in that new direction.
But given human tendency to cling to a belief regardless of proof, nothing could convince 100% of people there is no God, or no UFOs, or that human landed on the moon.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Church choir is the best thing I do all week. It gets my brain working in a different way, it allows me to be part of a team working towards something, and it allows me to be part of producing a specific thing that brings people joy. I would be very sad to lose it, as would most of the other volunteer members of my choir. So I could easily see us sticking it out, assuming that we could still come up with the money (and we do pretty much fund ourselves outside of the normal church budget, so we might just be able to do that). Choral evensong with the Howells Gloucester service would still be a remarkable and relaxing thing to hear, even if the words were proven beyond a doubt to be about an imaginary deity. (One of our members remembers that in her Atheist days, she still had to sing "Come ye faithful raise the strain" on Easter because it was just plain fun.)
I could honestly see my church sticking it out, resembling more of a Unitarian gathering than a sacrament focused Episcopal church from a belief perspective. Many of our members have been atheists or agnostic in the past, and many found us because, while they weren't quite sure that they believed in anything, they thought the service was beautiful, they found a nice group of people, and they saw that we were doing good things in the community. So it probably wouldn't even be a huge shock to the system.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I cannot imagine what could happen that would prove the non-existence of God.
It would have to be about as incredible as the event that could prove the EXISTENCE of God. In other words, you'd come away from it believing, if not in God, then still something pretty freaking out of this world.
Yes, I think many people would focus their devotions on whatever - or whoever - it was that had convinced them there was no God. Their religious buildings could then serve this different purpose.
Moreover, if senior religious leaders were initiated into the 'secret' long before the laity it would give them time to devise some sort of theological response that would prevent the collapse of their institutions.
Considering the potential influence of the Pope even among non-RC Christians I imagine it would be very hard for church leaders of other denominations to resist entering into some sort of pact with the Vatican, depending on how awful the alternatives might be.
It sounds like the plot of a futuristic novel, though.
(And what the Muslims would do, or the Jews? The former would have to be convinced as well, or else they'd be perfectly placed to benefit from the collapse of monotheistic Christianity.)
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I wouldn't bother.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Those with modern, useful buildings would turn into community centres, I hope.
I think our own Church community would grow. Far, far more people turn up to community events than worship events, even without the proof that there is no God.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
Let's not go into the nature of the event, or even if such an event could even be possible, for the sake of the scenario let's just assume it did.
The contradiction in stating (the obvious) that the thread is based on nonsense, is Why post then?
But you could take a believable scenario: What would happen is a government decreed the non-existence of God, and made belief illegal. There is probably useful data on what happens in that case.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
Let's not go into the nature of the event, or even if such an event could even be possible, for the sake of the scenario let's just assume it did.
The contradiction in stating (the obvious) that the thread is based on nonsense, is Why post then?
But you could take a believable scenario: What would happen is a government decreed the non-existence of God, and made belief illegal. There is probably useful data on what happens in that case.
That is a totally and completely different thing. Not even in the same ballpark as the OP.
I will rephrase in what I think the OP is on about.
What purpose does the Church serve other than preventing God getting a good sleep in on the weekends?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The only event that could do this is the return of Christ.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Those with modern, useful buildings would turn into community centres, I hope.
I think our own Church community would grow. Far, far more people turn up to community events than worship events, even without the proof that there is no God.
IMO, it depends on the community. The more immersive types would have more of an issue. There is a reason why the term "recovering Catholic" exists.
But one problem on this website (for this question) is that the typical user here doesn't represent the typical church goer. We have a much higher percentage of people active far beyond the typical congregant.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Church choir is the best thing I do all week. It gets my brain working in a different way, it allows me to be part of a team working towards something, and it allows me to be part of producing a specific thing that brings people joy. I would be very sad to lose it, as would most of the other volunteer members of my choir.
A community choir meets in our Church building - you could easily turn into one of those ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Churches at the very moderate or liberal end of the spectrum are already housing clergy or members who are tolerant of unorthodox understandings of God's existence. After a convocation or two they might decide that their social and spiritual calling ought to continue, regardless of any proofs of God's non-existence.
But all else being equal (i.e. no known alien or Illuminati involvement, or governmental oppression, etc.) a lot of people would, I think, choose to leave. After all, there are many other uplifting ways to serve the world, and not everyone loves the aesthetics or the social life of their church so much that they'd willingly overlook what they discover to be serious theological errors.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
This 'Event' turned the world on it's head, it was the day that something happened that categorically proved to every human on earth that there is no God.
I guess my question is whether that's all that it proved. In other words, did it also prove the non-existence of all spiritual (for lack of a better word) forces or aspects of life. Did it also prove the non-existence of any form of afterlife, including reincarnation? Did it prove only the non-existence of God in the general Abrahamic understanding, or did it prove the non-existence of anything that might be described as The Divine?
Depending on the answers to these additional questions, my hunch is that the aftermath of The Event would see some growth—though perhaps not so much as to equal earlier membership in churches—in those religious groups where belief in God is optional or beside the point. Perhaps there would be a lot more Buddhists and Unitarian-Universalists in the world.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Church choir is the best thing I do all week. It gets my brain working in a different way, it allows me to be part of a team working towards something, and it allows me to be part of producing a specific thing that brings people joy. I would be very sad to lose it, as would most of the other volunteer members of my choir.
A community choir meets in our Church building - you could easily turn into one of those
We have a very specific repertoire; would we dump it for more general show choir music? I don't think so. We are attached to the music that we sing and the context in which we sing it. The combination of the two has some value even if the words are not true. I could honestly see people wanting to come to choral evensong just because it provides 45 minutes of musical peace at the end of the day, especially if the foundation of their world had just been rocked by "the event".
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I suspect that after the Event, there will be quite a number of people saying "fuck it, if God doesn't exist, we'll invent Him!"
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
A bit tangential, but ...
Highly recommended is Flannery O'Connor's novel 'Wise Blood,' wherein one of the characters establishes a street ministry called 'The Church of Christ Without Christ.' (Way too complicated to try to explain here, but well worth reading, IMO.)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think our own Church community would grow. Far, far more people turn up to community events than worship events, even without the proof that there is no God.
That wouldn't surprise me either. I think such an event would take a lot of pressure off. People wouldn't be afraid of God botherers trying to convert them.
Then, also on the plus side, there would be no more fall outs over what God does or doesn't think, or want. Such an event might even stop Muslims from killing each other.
Could change my my sig, 'without God rather more things are possible'.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Of course, this is one of those silly "what-if" questions that are essentially unanswerable.
Still no harm in stirring this into the pot, I suppose:
If the NT events are anything to go by (and, I think it is possible to look at other religious groups who have faced similar things with a similar progression), I suspect "true believers" will experience something like the Kübler-Ross stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.
Of course in the NT example, the acceptance stage was immediately followed by the resurrection and reinvigoration of the movement as it evolved into something else. I'm also not quite sure about the bargaining came in.
Anyway, I think we see something similar in religious movements as they face evidence that they're completely wrong: for example when the Second Coming doesn't, well, come. When God does not supply new believers so the movement begins to die. When early enthusiasm begins to wane as prophesies are not fulfilled. When the government tells you that religion is illegal and smashes any memory of it.
So I think if there was some great event, and we're feeling generous and accept that most church congregations actually believe something of what they profess, then they'll scatter. In that scenario, I think it is very unlikely that church buildings would be available to be used by other organisations because the congregations are the thing that keep them alive. Some might survive if choirs can be persuaded to pay for their upkeep, I suspect many would be left to rack and ruin.
In time, we'd probably see mutations of the beliefs starting to develop - some perhaps like the Gotō Island Kakure Kirishitan may develop some kind of spiritual language from the former religion. Some maybe would retreat into long term denial of the evidence. Some might fashion other ways to incorporate The Event into their belief system.
Eventually, I'm guessing, one or more of these forms would get a hold in wider society and would start to take the place that the former religion had, possibly in the same spaces and buildings.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If all churches closed something else would pop up to satisfy the need for ritual.
What if the opposite of the OP Event occurred: God proved his existence but said He didn't see the point of religions. Would we mind not going on about him, he didn't want to be worshipped, could we please sell off the churches, give the proceeds to the poor and just get on with our lives ... And he'd like to sleep on Sunday mornings.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Given humanity's track record on doing what God tells us to do?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If all churches closed something else would pop up to satisfy the need for ritual.
What if the opposite of the OP Event occurred: God proved his existence but said He didn't see the point of religions. Would we mind not going on about him, he didn't want to be worshipped, could we please sell off the churches, give the proceeds to the poor and just get on with our lives ... And he'd like to sleep on Sunday mornings.
I understand that the animist religions believe God to be a creator but not a lawgiver, and somewhat remote and uninterested in human affairs.
You could say that a secularised version of Christianity as a system of moral behaviour also treats God as fairly remote. Many western Christians see themselves as decent people who don't necessarily need to 'worship' God.
However, the problem for Christianity is that it doesn't take itself for granted, or embed itself in the workings of nature; it exists in the consciousness of thinking, philosophising human beings (at least in its Westernised form). Popular Catholicism used to have its saints and angels, even devils, in active attendance, but these days if you cut the one and only God out of Christianity then you don't have much left other than a moral code. You certainly don't seem to have much in the way of spirituality.
[ 10. February 2016, 00:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If it turned out there were no God, I would really miss Him. And the beautiful trappings of the Orthodox way of life. It would take some kind of weird mind-fuck to try to parlay that into some kind of post-theistic something. But if it included enough of the trappings, I would probably go, just for comfort, at least at first.
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I cannot imagine what could happen that would prove the non-existence of God.
Discovery of the Babel Fish?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
I'd become a Buddhist or something else non-theistic. For me to live without God is quite conceivable ...but to live without RELIGION...
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
If an event such as proposed in the OP happened, then I think believers would worry and feel embarrassed for a bit, then that would fade, since they'd know they were definitely not alone, and a feeling of solidarity would be re-established as the background ethos. Atheists might well feell a tad smug, but that too would not last. Communities would quickly get together and decide which buildings to maintain, and which to sell. They would continue the activities because we humans like order and routine, but without the idea of God. Since choirs would know that the words they had always sung had no God etc behind them, they would carry on enjoying singing them because of the value and joy of the music. Adaptability has been a major factor in our species' survival!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The Church, like Islam, Judaism and all with a God ARE without them. Their God does not exist. They are all religions without God. God as He is.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Church, like Islam, Judaism and all with a God ARE without them. Their God does not exist. They are all religions without God. God as He is.
But - in the OPs example - there would definitely be no God as He is. So no need for searching for the truth, the truth would be right there in front of us, obvious to all.
Islam, Judaism, Christianity - all in their own muddles ways are searching for God. So would be completely redundant in the OPs scenario.
Would civilisation collapse or improve?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
It would usher in the apocalypse. Entire cultures would collapse overnight. History would be voided and empty. In some cases morality would collapse. There would be an enormous economic crash with a property crisis that would eclipse any such thing before. While many charities and social endeavours would continue, many would stagger for a period; some would flounder completely. Philosophical and wisdom traditions throughout the world would instantly die.
Nobody, not even atheists, would be smug about any of it.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is a totally and completely different thing. Not even in the same ballpark as the OP.
I will rephrase in what I think the OP is on about.
What purpose does the Church serve other than preventing God getting a good sleep in on the weekends?
This was exactly what I was getting at the heart of the question.
I always enjoy thought experiments (and despair at the lack of creativity of those who go "this can't happen, so I am not going to think about it!) as it can make you look at something from another direction.
Quite surprised that many posters here said that the churches would just close and turn into other uses. Do you really think that the communities built up (I mean with the person to person relationships, not the person-god relationship) would just quickly fall away and crumble?
The idea that actually the community would need each other MORE because of the change seems plausible.
And as mentioned, I could imagine things like evensong, choral music and poetry would provide meditation and peace (as it already does to many non-theists) and would still have a place.
Neil
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I cannot imagine what could happen that would prove the non-existence of God.
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Discovery of the Babel Fish?
Well if that's the scenario I'd be extra careful on zebra crossings for a bit.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SusanDoris: Atheists might well feell a tad smug, but that too would not last.
C'mon, we'll allow you at least one "Neener!"
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
C.S.Lewis' Puddleglum gives my answer to this better than I ever could:
quote:
Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones....
That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
To seriously address the OP it reminds me of a Jewish saying;
quote:
The Torah is not in Heaven
and the play The Trial of God where they find God guilty of not existing or being negligent, and then proceed with the usual Sabbath prayers.
Part of my wants to hold to a rigorously intellectually honest position but I suspect I'd be like the Rabbis - I'd regard religion as too important to me and, in a sense, my property and not God's. So I'd carry on.
To give it a more positive rationalization I would regard the beauty, altruism, community and hope of religion as being too important to lose simply because faith was destroyed. And I see something that is true in religion even in the absence of rational reason to believe in God. I could justify being irrational, I think.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Philosophical and wisdom traditions throughout the world would instantly die.
Why?
Is there no philosophy or wisdom without God?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's an interesting fantasy, and one of my thoughts is that very little would change. The non-religious would notice it, and carry on with their lives. Some of the religious would carry on, on an as if basis, i.e. let's live as if God existed. Another group would simply deny it, or compartmentalize their minds.
It's possible that those two groups already exist.
Maybe some would gravitate to non-theistic religion, such as Buddhism or advaita, or some kind of Jungian archetype worship.
The world would keep turning, and cats would still need feeding in the morning.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
C.S.Lewis' Puddleglum gives my answer to this better than I ever could:
As with most of CSL, this has never rung true for me. If I'm Truman Burbank and suddenly I get inarguable evidence that my whole existence is a lie for television, I'm not going to continue pretending as if nothing has changed, I'm going to crumple into a tiny heap.
[ 10. February 2016, 09:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
No doubt churches would meet in the immediate aftermath, but I don’t think they’d have anything like the current numbers. I for one would stay in bed.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm going to crumple into a tiny heap.
And then what? One can't stay in a tiny heap.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And then what? One can't stay in a tiny heap.
As I said above, there are a range of different responses which have been modelled by different groups over time: ie death of the organisation, mutation into a different type of faith etc.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Part of me wants this thread to run all the way through Lent, and then on Easter Sunday we'll post "Christ has risen indeed!"
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
C.S.Lewis' Puddleglum gives my answer to this better than I ever could:
As with most of CSL, this has never rung true for me. If I'm Truman Burbank and suddenly I get inarguable evidence that my whole existence is a lie for television, I'm not going to continue pretending as if nothing has changed, I'm going to crumple into a tiny heap.
The way I read it, it's not about pretending, it's more about having an ideal. If there's no heaven, well then, we'll just live and work for the kingdom on earth.
You could criticise me by saying I might as well believe in Camelot. And you might have a point.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The way I read it, it's not about pretending, it's more about having an ideal. If there's no heaven, well then, we'll just live and work for the kingdom on earth.
I don't think people are naturally Platonic. When one reality breaks, they look for another rather than trying to turn it into an eternal ideal. Of course different people are different and the reality might well be that in the long run a religion develops which reinterprets the lost spirituality to mean an ideal. I just don't think this would happen in the minds of those who immediately experience the loss.
quote:
You could criticise me by saying I might as well believe in Camelot. And you might have a point.
Oh I think there is more value in Christianity - even if completely false - than in the belief in Camelot. But of course YMMV.
[ 10. February 2016, 10:31: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
For me it is also about not wanting to stay in a heap. That might be part of my initial reaction, but I would want to move on. How organizations do that is different from individuals. Organizations don't have to exist if no-one wants them to. But I want to have an active and useful life whatever the metaphysical reality out there.
Mileages vary and some people clearly don't need religion. Possibly I could manage as well, but I think I might want to believe in some of the good things that I see in religion.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: Atheists might well feell a tad smug, but that too would not last.
C'mon, we'll allow you at least one "Neener!"
Thank you! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
Quite surprised that many posters here said that the churches would just close and turn into other uses. Do you really think that the communities built up (I mean with the person to person relationships, not the person-god relationship) would just quickly fall away and crumble?
The idea that actually the community would need each other MORE because of the change seems plausible.
And as mentioned, I could imagine things like evensong, choral music and poetry would provide meditation and peace (as it already does to many non-theists) and would still have a place.
But the crumbling away has already begun! We can see it happening in Western societies today.
A small number of sophisticates go to church primarily for the fine music and poetry, but most people aren't bothered to do that. Others may just be there because they want a community to be part of, but in general our culture is a privatised one and I understand that most community organisations are struggling, not just churches. A lot of people wouldn't want to give up their time, money and efforts to support churches whose theology they find to be false.
I suggested earlier that the clergy might need to come up quickly with an alternative theology in order to keep their jobs and congregations, but few ministers would have the skills to promote a post-theistic Christianity, IMO. Some would, but ultimately Western church life would become even more of a tiny, middle class, intellectual hobby than it is now.
However, I suppose disproving the existence of Jehovah might not convince the world that there are no gods whatsoever. Polytheism might increase. (In reality, of course, you wouldn't get the whole world to fall into line on this. Not unless you had a global mind control thing going on.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Interesting point - you might prove there is no God, but would that include no divine, or no gods, or no higher power, or no mana? It comes back to a definition of God. I am quite happy to worship my wife, and, obviously, propitiate her.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It sounds like the plot of a futuristic novel, though.
[/QB]
I believe this was a minor sub plot in War of the Worlds where a Clergyman basically loses his marbles over the arrival of the Martians.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point - you might prove there is no God, but would that include no divine, or no gods, or no higher power, or no mana? It comes back to a definition of God. I am quite happy to worship my wife, and, obviously, propitiate her.
Good point. We'd believe in something. It seems to be a Thing That We Do. I think in practice, belief often comes down to wanting something to be true.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point - you might prove there is no God, but would that include no divine, or no gods, or no higher power, or no mana? It comes back to a definition of God. I am quite happy to worship my wife, and, obviously, propitiate her.
Good point. We'd believe in something. It seems to be a Thing That We Do. I think in practice, belief often comes down to wanting something to be true.
Or more than that. Jung describes the 'numinous Other', which is just a feature of the psyche, which you can't get rid of. Well, you can project it onto odd stuff such as dictators or film-stars, etc.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It sounds like the plot of a futuristic novel, though.
I believe this was a minor sub plot in War of the Worlds where a Clergyman basically loses his marbles over the arrival of the Martians. [/QB]
The arrival of the Martians wouldn't necessarily prove the non-existence of God, although it would present a serious theological problem that most people haven't thought about.
I think the only plot-worthy explanation for everyone ceasing to believe in the God of Abraham in one fell swoop is the idea of mind control. The motive could be psychological collapse, engineered by some malign force that wanted control of the whole world!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Or as Lewis once propounded somewhere: they dig up the incontrovertible and clearly authentic body of Jesus, from some archaeological site. We will have to leave the 'clearly authentic' bit to the imagination, because that right there is a high hill to climb -- I personally would insist on the complete catalog of physical markers (circumcision, the crucifixion injures, etc.) plus some intensive DNA and cat-scan work. A legible and datable grave marker would be essential.
But then, to paraphrase Paul, we are in deep kimchee.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Or as Lewis once propounded somewhere: they dig up the incontrovertible and clearly authentic body of Jesus, from some archaeological site. We will have to leave the 'clearly authentic' bit to the imagination, because that right there is a high hill to climb -- I personally would insist on the complete catalog of physical markers (circumcision, the crucifixion injures, etc.) plus some intensive DNA and cat-scan work. A legible and datable grave marker would be essential.
But then, to paraphrase Paul, we are in deep kimchee.
Although it would not prove that God did not exist at all. It would show that some people got him wrong.
It's an interesting addition to the OP - prove that God does not exist; and/or prove that Christ didn't.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Or as Lewis once propounded somewhere: they dig up the incontrovertible and clearly authentic body of Jesus, from some archaeological site. We will have to leave the 'clearly authentic' bit to the imagination, because that right there is a high hill to climb -- I personally would insist on the complete catalog of physical markers (circumcision, the crucifixion injures, etc.) plus some intensive DNA and cat-scan work. A legible and datable grave marker would be essential.
But then, to paraphrase Paul, we are in deep kimchee.
Yeah, this is about the only thing I can imagine that would do it. And yet, there's no way at this point in time that any discovered body could be identified beyond a reasonable doubt as his--well, unless it's alive and he's wearing it to tell us so! There were plenty of crucifixions in that day and place, and even the spear thing can't have been that unusual. And DNA/circumcision (which wouldn't likely survive anyway, to this day) would only tell us we had a Jewish male victim.
I suppose we could postulate a time machine and a trusted time explorer, with corroborating video etc. Nah, maybe not.
Oh, maybe the voice of God could announce his nonexistence. That might do it...
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
But forgive me for continuing the tangent. If such a thing were to occur as worldwide loss of faith (the question of whether it was correct loss of faith is irrelevant), I imagine most churches would fold, and a few would try to carry on as ethical societies. But it would be a poor, thin substitute for Christianity, or anything else, really.
I don't think I'd be there. If I were suddenly convinced of atheism, I suspect I'd be dead by my own hand. It would be like having my lungs and heart ripped out--like losing my whole family in a single car accident. I don't think I could carry on.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
Quite surprised that many posters here said that the churches would just close and turn into other uses. Do you really think that the communities built up (I mean with the person to person relationships, not the person-god relationship) would just quickly fall away and crumble?
Would the communities break up? Yes.
There are some at my church I'd still spend time with, because they're close friends, and we'd spend time together anyway, but they're a minority of the people.
The thing that draws us together as a community is God. We come together in His service. Without God, we're a bunch of people who don't have much more in common than a randomly-selected group of people off the street.
Groups would remain - the group of people who currently regularly volunteer at the homeless shelter would keep doing that, the choir would probably join a local secular choir en masse, the families with young kids that get together each week would keep doing that - but there would be nothing to tie the singers to the homeless volunteers or the kids.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
C.S.Lewis' Puddleglum gives my answer to this better than I ever could:
As with most of CSL, this has never rung true for me. If I'm Truman Burbank and suddenly I get inarguable evidence that my whole existence is a lie for television, I'm not going to continue pretending as if nothing has changed, I'm going to crumple into a tiny heap.
The way I read it, it's not about pretending, it's more about having an ideal. If there's no heaven, well then, we'll just live and work for the kingdom on earth.
But first I'd like to get properly laid without having to worry about spending eternity in agony as a result.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It would usher in the apocalypse. Entire cultures would collapse overnight. History would be voided and empty. In some cases morality would collapse. There would be an enormous economic crash with a property crisis that would eclipse any such thing before. While many charities and social endeavours would continue, many would stagger for a period; some would flounder completely. Philosophical and wisdom traditions throughout the world would instantly die.
I fail to see how any of that would happen. Very few of our cultures (at any globally-significant level) are dependent on belief in God any more. History would still have happened. Morality? - half the time these days religion is on the wrong side of that particular argument as it is. The idea that economics or the property markets are even tangentially related to religion is laughable. The majority of charities and social endeavours exist because the people running them care about the beneficiaries, and that would surely continue to be the case. And philosophy/wisdom are as active amongst atheists as they are amongst the religious.
I think you have a very inflated view of the importance of God to our modern, secular world.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think I'd be there. If I were suddenly convinced of atheism, I suspect I'd be dead by my own hand. It would be like having my lungs and heart ripped out--like losing my whole family in a single car accident. I don't think I could carry on.
I think it is sad that you don't intrinsically feel your life has value in itself... but that is another matter for another thread...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think I'd be there. If I were suddenly convinced of atheism, I suspect I'd be dead by my own hand. It would be like having my lungs and heart ripped out--like losing my whole family in a single car accident. I don't think I could carry on.
I'm the opposite - I'm pretty much already convinced there is effectively no God. My life has hardly changed one jot. I still go to Church as my community is there. They know I'm there for the tea and cakes (joking, I do lots for them too - AV, arty stuff, admin stuff) and they are very kind to me. Probably praying for my soul but, hey ho, I'll put up with that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It would usher in the apocalypse. Entire cultures would collapse overnight. History would be voided and empty. In some cases morality would collapse. There would be an enormous economic crash with a property crisis that would eclipse any such thing before. While many charities and social endeavours would continue, many would stagger for a period; some would flounder completely. Philosophical and wisdom traditions throughout the world would instantly die.
I fail to see how any of that would happen. Very few of our cultures (at any globally-significant level) are dependent on belief in God any more. History would still have happened. Morality? - half the time these days religion is on the wrong side of that particular argument as it is. The idea that economics or the property markets are even tangentially related to religion is laughable. The majority of charities and social endeavours exist because the people running them care about the beneficiaries, and that would surely continue to be the case. And philosophy/wisdom are as active amongst atheists as they are amongst the religious.
I think you have a very inflated view of the importance of God to our modern, secular world.
Well, of course, the modern secular world is only a small part of the world, and it's getting smaller. We've mostly focused on what the disappearance of God would mean in our post-Christian, secularising societies, but Christianity is becoming predominantly a religion of the Global South, with a significant presence among ethnic minorities in the West. Moreover, Islam is set to become the largest religion by the end of the century.
The interesting question is what such a huge religious announcement would mean among the communities and cultures that are the least like ours....
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suggested earlier that the clergy might need to come up quickly with an alternative theology in order to keep their jobs and congregations, but few ministers would have the skills to promote a post-theistic Christianity, IMO.
I might or might not have the skills to do so, but for me there would be literally no point. Of course Christian ethics would still be as viable, but then they're hardly unique among the cultures of the world.
I don't value Christianity because of the community (I can get that elsewhere) or the moral grounding (also available elsewhere). I value it because Christ has redeemed me from sin and death, and because I am promised to be with my God in eternity. If there's no God, Christianity per se is pointless. Again, why bother?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: I fail to see how any of that would happen. Very few of our cultures (at any globally-significant level) are dependent on belief in God any more. History would still have happened. Morality? - half the time these days religion is on the wrong side of that particular argument as it is. The idea that economics or the property markets are even tangentially related to religion is laughable. The majority of charities and social endeavours exist because the people running them care about the beneficiaries, and that would surely continue to be the case. And philosophy/wisdom are as active amongst atheists as they are amongst the religious.
I think you have a very inflated view of the importance of God to our modern, secular world.
You're confusing a world without religion and a world without God a bit here.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think I'd be there. If I were suddenly convinced of atheism, I suspect I'd be dead by my own hand. It would be like having my lungs and heart ripped out--like losing my whole family in a single car accident. I don't think I could carry on.
I think it is sad that you don't intrinsically feel your life has value in itself... but that is another matter for another thread...
Where does value come from if there is no ultimate Valuer?
Then indeed life would be "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I value my life very highly right now. But this wouild inevitably change if I thought it to be merely the result of chance and possessing no lasting effect on anything.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suggested earlier that the clergy might need to come up quickly with an alternative theology in order to keep their jobs and congregations, but few ministers would have the skills to promote a post-theistic Christianity, IMO.
This picture of the clergy may or may not be accurate, but it's the very opposite of flattering. I'd hope they'd be honest enough to go get jobs in plumbing or something.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think I'd be there. If I were suddenly convinced of atheism, I suspect I'd be dead by my own hand. It would be like having my lungs and heart ripped out--like losing my whole family in a single car accident. I don't think I could carry on.
I'm the opposite - I'm pretty much already convinced there is effectively no God. My life has hardly changed one jot. I still go to Church as my community is there. They know I'm there for the tea and cakes (joking, I do lots for them too - AV, arty stuff, admin stuff) and they are very kind to me. Probably praying for my soul but, hey ho, I'll put up with that.
Yes, and apologies for keep agreeing with you. I would say the reverse, post-church, and post-theism, well, not sure about that one, my life has improved, my value has gone through the roof, love is everywhere, the pub's open, and I also stopped working.
It's another separation, but I've got used to these, with advancing years. But what I am is still the same.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Marvin:
quote:
I think you have a very inflated view of the importance of God to our modern, secular world.
Secular world? Might you have an inflated view of the West as 'the world'?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
."...in the OPs example - there would definitely be no God as He is. So no need for searching for the truth, the truth would be right there in front of us, obvious to all.
But what exactly would that "truth" be?
That we are mere organisms isolated in a barren Solar System ? The only thing obvious would be that we are a freak of evolution, with no purpose whatsoever other than to roam the Cosmos trying to find a mirror image of ourselves .
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
."...in the OPs example - there would definitely be no God as He is. So no need for searching for the truth, the truth would be right there in front of us, obvious to all.
But what exactly would that "truth" be?
That we are mere organisms isolated in a barren Solar System ? The only thing obvious would be that we are a freak of evolution, with no purpose whatsoever other than to roam the Cosmos trying to find a mirror image of ourselves .
That seems a very negative view. Well, it's not how I see life really. No purpose whatsoever - eh? Why the nihilism?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think I'd be there. If I were suddenly convinced of atheism, I suspect I'd be dead by my own hand. It would be like having my lungs and heart ripped out--like losing my whole family in a single car accident. I don't think I could carry on.
I think it is sad that you don't intrinsically feel your life has value in itself... but that is another matter for another thread...
Where does value come from if there is no ultimate Valuer?
Then indeed life would be "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I value my life very highly right now. But this wouild inevitably change if I thought it to be merely the result of chance and possessing no lasting effect on anything.
It is in valuing my life, for its own sake, that makes me stronger. It has made me more compassionate, more actively charitable and less self-focused. Not that I am perfect at this, it is a journey, but devaluing exterior validation has brought greater connection with that exterior.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Spot on, lilBuddha. Without church, without God, life is a overflowing torrent, in which I bathe.
It struck me that the value that I used to place in God and Christ has now spilled over into everything. Ironic, or what? It's an enlargement.
[ 10. February 2016, 18:12: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
seems a very negative view. Well, it's not how I see life really. No purpose whatsoever - eh? Why the nihilism?
Firstly I regard myself as a negative person, something of a futilitarian really. Not that it stops me getting up in the morning and going about 'normal' activities.
The God conversion after 40 years of agnostic/atheist probably rates as the most positive experience I've thus far come across. Even though the emotion of that has largely dissipated over 10 or 15 years the residue is a sharp contrast in my thinking towards humanity's existence. IE either we are here for a purpose, (therefore it's something to do with an outside agent), or we are here for no purpose at all.
If this so called 'Event' were to happen whereby we know for sure there is no organised force greater than ourselves in existence, then nothing would make any sense. I don't say this as a devote believer in God, well not the God humanity has endeavoured to caricature.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There is no phenomenon that could make Muslims and Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants and Jews and Hindus become post-whatever except the return of Christ. Nothing can disprove their God to most believers. Even random cosmic ghastliness, like a gamma-ray burster or an Invasion of the Body Snatchers or The Thing or The Stand or The Genocides. Nothing. Except confrontation with Him. And evolution.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Marvin:
quote:
I fail to see how any of that would happen. Very few of our cultures (at any globally-significant level) are dependent on belief in God any more. History would still have happened. Morality? - half the time these days religion is on the wrong side of that particular argument as it is. The idea that economics or the property markets are even tangentially related to religion is laughable. The majority of charities and social endeavours exist because the people running them care about the beneficiaries, and that would surely continue to be the case. And philosophy/wisdom are as active amongst atheists as they are amongst the religious.
I think much of what you state is true, but it wasn't the point I was trying to make if I've read you correctly. I was thinking about all religions throughout the world, their literature, their great art, their architecture, their influence on the understanding of morality, politics, social structures, education, philosophy etc, etc, etc. Some of it is historical and some of it is very much current and alive. If religion was to be removed from all of this all over the planet in the literal blink of an eye, you would be talking about a catastrophic collapse of religious systems, cultural understanding, educational aspects, literary genres, moral systems, art movements, architectural aspirations, philosophical systems, historical understanding, political movements etc etc etc. The practical side of it would dictate that a great many people would suddenly find themselves unemployed, possibly in mental turmoil, possibly the target for hatred and in the position of scapegoating. Remember, removing religion will not remove our immense capacity for stupidity. You would also have vast amounts of property that in all likelihood would become fairly dormant in a very short space of time and a lot of people wanting to sell them off. There might be others who would like to burn them and never be reminded of them again. Add to this all of the trusts, the investments and the money going various directions through religious structures and into charities, schools, colleges, hospitals etc etc etc...all of which would rapidly need to be re-appropriated in some manner to change the terms of trusts and investments to continue to work. Do you really think that those who feel aggrieved about their sense of loss are really going to sit on their hands and wait for the hierarchy of said religions and institutions to start that painfully slow process of re-appropriation? I don't. I don't believe either that many people who would have ploughed considerable amounts of their own money into whatever their chosen religion aren't going to expect something of that back. Add to this the general mental demise of those who find the whole thing too depressing to contemplate, the millions who would feel their sense of hope had literally evaporated overnight or who found profound meaning in something they now know to be a fraud. The result of that alone doesn't bear thinking about.
Now if it was slow and gradual then it might be quite different and I don't imagine that there would be any kind of doomsday scenario. There would still be a huge cultural loss (among a number of other things), but I think every civilisation has dealt with that at some point or another and survived it - not always for the better mind, but they have survived it
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suggested earlier that the clergy might need to come up quickly with an alternative theology in order to keep their jobs and congregations, but few ministers would have the skills to promote a post-theistic Christianity, IMO.
This picture of the clergy may or may not be accurate, but it's the very opposite of flattering. I'd hope they'd be honest enough to go get jobs in plumbing or something.
Ha! Actually, it was a theologian who once told me that when training ordinands he advised them not to preach on some of the less orthodox interpretations of Scripture that they'd studied in class because they'd only do it badly.
It's almost a cliché that the mainstream church clergy don't necessarily tell their congregations what they really believe, for fear of damaging their faith, and losing them from the church. If this involves out and out atheism, some find they have to hide their atheism, although there are others who openly retain their niche in the church. There are philosophical organisations they can join, such as the Sea of Faith.
I just think, though, that since most clergy are already nervous of getting too theologically radical with their congregations they'd find it very hard to deal with a situation like the one in the OP. Some of them would try, and would have various motives for doing so. Others would go off and find other jobs - though such a cataclysmic discovery might well go hand in hand with a drop in the stock market, etc. And would there really be enough jobs for all the suddenly unemployed clergymen and women, imams and rabbis around the world?
[ 10. February 2016, 22:56: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I have enough trouble getting myself to church as it is. After 'the event' bed would win hands down. As for what would happen to churches, there will be a few dollars to be made by developers, I can tell you.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Svitlana:
quote:
It's almost a cliché that the mainstream church clergy don't necessarily tell their congregations what they really believe, for fear of damaging their faith, and losing them from the church.
You do appear to live in part of the UK where cliches and stereotypes seem all pervasive. You must be drowning in examples of generalisation.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's almost a cliché that the mainstream church clergy don't necessarily tell their congregations what they really believe, for fear of damaging their faith, and losing them from the church. If this involves out and out atheism, some find they have to hide their atheism, although there are others who openly retain their niche in the church. There are philosophical organisations they can join, such as the Sea of Faith.
Well, fuck that for a game of soldiers. Simple honesty ought to compel such people to leave a job they can no longer do honestly.
And I'd say the same for any imam who converted to Christianity.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's almost a cliché that the mainstream church clergy don't necessarily tell their congregations what they really believe, for fear of damaging their faith, and losing them from the church. If this involves out and out atheism, some find they have to hide their atheism, although there are others who openly retain their niche in the church. There are philosophical organisations they can join, such as the Sea of Faith.
I just think, though, that since most clergy are already nervous of getting too theologically radical with their congregations...
With the caveat that I couldn't get your first link to work, I would suggest it's only a cliche because people (although you're the only one I know) keep saying it. A few anecdotal stories as I suspect your link will show do not a trend make. Meanwhile, there are, as you well know, scores of clergy right here on the Ship-- where anonymity would protect them if they wanted to "come out" as an atheist or some other radical theology to terrible to tell their congregants-- and yet I don't see anyone here confessing to such a dire thing.
I find your continual references to this supposed but apparently unsubstantiated "fact" incredibly offensive. But I've told you that before. Whatever.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Atheists might well feell a tad smug, but that too would not last.
I dunno. They're smug now, even WITHOUT the grand disproof. And that doesn't appear to be fading. Quite the opposite.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Atheists might well feell a tad smug, but that too would not last.
I dunno. They're smug now, even WITHOUT the grand disproof. And that doesn't appear to be fading. Quite the opposite.
Makes sense that this would be the case.
God may or may not be. But there is less perceived need for god(s).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Atheists might well feell a tad smug, but that too would not last.
I dunno. They're smug now, even WITHOUT the grand disproof. And that doesn't appear to be fading. Quite the opposite.
Makes sense that this would be the case.
God may or may not be. But there is less perceived need for god(s).
I'm not following you. Why does that matter?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You do appear to live in part of the UK where cliches and stereotypes seem all pervasive
I don't understand. Are you saying that the part of the UK in which SvitlanaV2 lives is particularly awash with "cliches and stereotypes" - in that case where is this benighted part of our country? I will avoid it and restrict myself to those shires which know and honour the truth.
Or are you referring to the whole UK being more awash than, say, France, China, New Zealand, the US, Malawi or where ever? (The names were chosen randomly.)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not following you. Why does that matter?
As more of our world can be explained without need of god(s), it seems natural that those so inclined would feel more smug.
I hadn't really perceived any rise in the level of smug, so I am guessing. Not saying you are wrong, just I hadn't noticed.
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's almost a cliché that the mainstream church clergy don't necessarily tell their congregations what they really believe, for fear of damaging their faith, and losing them from the church. If this involves out and out atheism, some find they have to hide their atheism, although there are others who openly retain their niche in the church. There are philosophical organisations they can join, such as the Sea of Faith.
Well, fuck that for a game of soldiers. Simple honesty ought to compel such people to leave a job they can no longer do honestly.
And I'd say the same for any imam who converted to Christianity.
Amen to that LC! Seasons of doubt and uncertainty can affect us all, but that's way different from what's being suggested here. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, it was a theologian who once told me that when training ordinands he advised them not to preach on some of the less orthodox interpretations of Scripture that they'd studied in class because they'd only do it badly.
There doesn't have to be malign motives for this necessarily - it can simply be the avoidance of presenting something to people who don't necessarily have the contextual information or experience of analysis needed to process it properly - or often the time.
and yeah .. what fc said ..
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Que:
quote:
I don't understand. Are you saying that the part of the UK in which SvitlanaV2 lives is particularly awash with "cliches and stereotypes" - in that case where is this benighted part of our country? I will avoid it and restrict myself to those shires which know and honour the truth.
Or are you referring to the whole UK being more awash than, say, France, China, New Zealand, the US, Malawi or where ever? (The names were chosen randomly.)
I don't really understand it either. Svitlana is somewhere in the UK, but it seems that all of the clergy there (wherever it is they reside) are theologically illiterate, incapable of communicating anything effectively, up to their necks in hypocrisy and exercise a deceit in living a lifestyle they don't actually believe in. It sounds quite awful and we really only can but pray for her.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I don't really understand it either. Svitlana is somewhere in the UK, but it seems that all of the clergy there (wherever it is they reside) are theologically illiterate, incapable of communicating anything effectively, up to their necks in hypocrisy and exercise a deceit in living a lifestyle they don't actually believe in. It sounds quite awful and we really only can but pray for her.
So your conclusion is based on the anecdotal evidence of Svitlana.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
It surely can't be anecdotal evidence. That would be like writing down the first thoughts that came into your head and then applying it to everything, everywhere in the world. No, that would just be silly. I'm sure the links to proper studies will appear soon to put us all right on the matter.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm sure the links to proper studies will appear soon to put us all right on the matter.
I have no special interest in the subject but the Sea of Faith website may be more informative on Christian atheism/humanism or whatever it is than the original links.
I remember my mother-in-law, married to a CoE vicar with a mining village parish, saying that "Honest to God" seemed terribly outdated when it first appeared ("We'd known all that stuff for years") but equally she was certain it wasn't the sort of thing her husband would ever discuss from the pulpit. That was in the late 1950's. Just an anecdote - alas I never met him.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
seems a very negative view. Well, it's not how I see life really. No purpose whatsoever - eh? Why the nihilism?
Firstly I regard myself as a negative person, something of a futilitarian really. Not that it stops me getting up in the morning and going about 'normal' activities.
The God conversion after 40 years of agnostic/atheist probably rates as the most positive experience I've thus far come across. Even though the emotion of that has largely dissipated over 10 or 15 years the residue is a sharp contrast in my thinking towards humanity's existence. IE either we are here for a purpose, (therefore it's something to do with an outside agent), or we are here for no purpose at all.
If this so called 'Event' were to happen whereby we know for sure there is no organised force greater than ourselves in existence, then nothing would make any sense. I don't say this as a devote believer in God, well not the God humanity has endeavoured to caricature.
I sympathize with your negative thoughts, as I am prone to fits of melancholy myself. I suppose I don't really give them any metaphysical significance, especially as I usually get over them.
The stuff about purpose baffles me. It seems like a false dichotomy to me - either purpose is granted by an external intelligence (which we can call God), or there is none.
Hold your horses! The words 'excluded middle' are ringing in my ears. For example, my purpose right now is to write a reply to you. I know that is different from 'the purpose of my life', but then that is too metaphysical for me. Later I will cook the dinner and watch the TV. I hear you fall over in amazement! Yes, heroism, self-sacrifice, nobility, in SW15.
Well, OK, you could say that this is all granted by God, and of course, I can't show that that is wrong.
Just an anecdote - my whole family were atheists, even the grandparents, and they went about their lives with a will and a cheery grin, well, most of the time. Again, you can counter that by saying that God did it. Well, I would say that they did it.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Are people atheist who believe "God" is a necessary outcome of human society?
Jengie
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Are people atheist who believe "God" is a necessary outcome of human society?
The early Christians were called "atheist" because they didn't believe in the Greco-Roman gods. When Polycarp was being martyred, he was abjured to save himself by shouting, "Down with the atheists." Hence, whether or not you're an atheist to someone or other depends on which god you're denying the existence/reality of.
(Smartarse that he was, he pointed in a sweeping motion to the people in the stands and said it. That sealed it.)
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not following you. Why does that matter?
As more of our world can be explained without need of god(s), it seems natural that those so inclined would feel more smug.
I hadn't really perceived any rise in the level of smug, so I am guessing. Not saying you are wrong, just I hadn't noticed.
The level of smug took a huge leap with the "brights" movement (if movement is the right word). From where I stand nobody has the right to be smug about things that cannot be proven either way. Those who are smug under such circumstances show more about their character than the question in question.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When Polycarp was being martyred, he was abjured to save himself by shouting, "Down with the atheists." Hence, whether or not you're an atheist to someone or other depends on which god you're denying the existence/reality of.
(Smartarse that he was, he pointed in a sweeping motion to the people in the stands and said it. That sealed it.)
I've always loved the smart-ass martyrs. If you've got to go, do it in style!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is in valuing my life, for its own sake, that makes me stronger. It has made me more compassionate, more actively charitable and less self-focused. Not that I am perfect at this, it is a journey, but devaluing exterior validation has brought greater connection with that exterior.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Spot on, lilBuddha. Without church, without God, life is a overflowing torrent, in which I bathe.
It struck me that the value that I used to place in God and Christ has now spilled over into everything. Ironic, or what? It's an enlargement.
That's great if you're built that way. I'm not. If value is something we make up ourselves--if the same is true for truth, purpose, meaning--I might as well go hang myself. I wouldn't be able to fool myself into believing whatever I constructed--I would always be seeing through it, and the whole thing would fall apart like wet toilet paper. My position would be quite similar to that in Ecclesiastes, only without a God.
It's similar to the way some people exhort others to "just believe" (or alternately, "just stop believing that"). Belief is not a voluntary function for me, one that I can turn on or off as I please. And it boggles my mind to know that this is apparently not the case for a great many people. Like, how do you do it????
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I was thinking about all religions throughout the world, their literature, their great art, their architecture, their influence on the understanding of morality, politics, social structures, education, philosophy etc, etc, etc. Some of it is historical and some of it is very much current and alive.
The literature, art and architecture would still exist. It's not like "The Event" would unmake Westminster Cathedral, or unpaint the Sistine Chapel.
As for morality and politics, I can't help but think that a lot of the more unpleasant outworkings of the various Dead Horses would suddenly cease after "The Event". Without any appeal to God to back up their prejudice, the haters would lose any moral support they may ever have had for their positions.
I have been challenged to consider non-Western societies and the impact "The Event" would have on them. Well, I can't imagine the removal of such religiously-inspired groups as Boko Haram and ISIS would be a bad thing, nor do I think the immediate cessation of Catholic opposition to birth control would be anything but a boon in the fight against AIDS in Africa. Would the situation in Israel/Palestine become easier to resolve without the inflammatory influence of people's various beliefs in the promises made to them by their God?
quote:
If religion was to be removed from all of this all over the planet in the literal blink of an eye, you would be talking about a catastrophic collapse of religious systems...
Well duh.
quote:
...cultural understanding, educational aspects, literary genres, moral systems, art movements, architectural aspirations, philosophical systems, historical understanding, political movements etc etc etc.
While I'm sure there would be an effect on such things, to call it a "catastrophic collapse" seems to me to be an overstatement.
quote:
The practical side of it would dictate that a great many people would suddenly find themselves unemployed, possibly in mental turmoil, possibly the target for hatred and in the position of scapegoating.
Such things would pass, and probably quite quickly.
quote:
Remember, removing religion will not remove our immense capacity for stupidity.
No. But it would remove one of the chief means by which otherwise intelligent people have been convinced to act stupidly.
quote:
[snip]Add to this the general mental demise of those who find the whole thing too depressing to contemplate, the millions who would feel their sense of hope had literally evaporated overnight or who found profound meaning in something they now know to be a fraud. The result of that alone doesn't bear thinking about.
As I find it difficult to understand such feelings I can't really comment. But I'd like to think that most people would still be able to find hope and meaning in their lives without the promise of pie in the sky.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is in valuing my life, for its own sake, that makes me stronger. It has made me more compassionate, more actively charitable and less self-focused. Not that I am perfect at this, it is a journey, but devaluing exterior validation has brought greater connection with that exterior.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Spot on, lilBuddha. Without church, without God, life is a overflowing torrent, in which I bathe.
It struck me that the value that I used to place in God and Christ has now spilled over into everything. Ironic, or what? It's an enlargement.
That's great if you're built that way. I'm not. If value is something we make up ourselves--if the same is true for truth, purpose, meaning--I might as well go hang myself. I wouldn't be able to fool myself into believing whatever I constructed--I would always be seeing through it, and the whole thing would fall apart like wet toilet paper. My position would be quite similar to that in Ecclesiastes, only without a God.
It's similar to the way some people exhort others to "just believe" (or alternately, "just stop believing that"). Belief is not a voluntary function for me, one that I can turn on or off as I please. And it boggles my mind to know that this is apparently not the case for a great many people. Like, how do you do it????
This is spilling over into too many areas to cover really. But anyway, I don't think value is something that I make up. It often stems from a connection between me and something else, and that involves lots of feelings, thoughts, symbolism, and so on, which are involuntary, or I suppose, unconscious.
For example, I like gardening, but I didn't decide to like it really. It just suits me. To analyze it more would be interesting, but might take several hundred pages!
I don't denigrate religion, because for many people there is a deep connection there also, and who am I to cavil at that? In fact, this still happens for me at times, with certain religious symbols. But again, I don't control that.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Maybe that's where the confusion comes--I don't equate value with liking. There are things I do because I like them, but I can't kid myself and think they have any intrinsic value as such. There are other things I do because they do have value (for example, volunteer work), even though the work itself is very dislikable (fighting with the immigration bureaucracy, shudder).
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Belief is not a voluntary function for me, one that I can turn on or off as I please. And it boggles my mind to know that this is apparently not the case for a great many people. Like, how do you do it????
I agree entirely. There seem to be some who, when an argument convinces them, just swap beliefs. I tend to react with: is there a flaw in the argument (given time you can usually find one) and if not, well there are much cleverer people than me who don't believe it either so I needn't. (Unless of course it was something I wanted to believe ...)
Occasionally I manage it: I fake believing and sometimes forget it's a fake. It's a cheap trick but often we become what we act as if we believe. Arguably that is the basis of all learning - you make someone do something that seems unnatural until it becomes natural. Maybe that's what easy belief swappers do but they don't let on ...
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Is it just me, or is anyone enjoying the fact that we can all argue with certainty about the speculative for no less than three pages? I know there's some kind of religious irony in there aching to get out.....just can't quite put my finger on it.
Marvin, you points are fair enough, but you must admit, surely, that you're indulging in examples of the very worst stereotypes of 'religion' in order to make them.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
There seem to be some who, when an argument convinces them, just swap beliefs.
I can do that with objective things or where belief is simply a statement of "on the balance of probabilities". But belief in God is also a statement of hope and faith. It has a quality like belief in a person, where we don't mean that we are considering the existence or not of that individual, but rather faith in their intentions and personality. Sometimes hope as well. That sort of belief shouldn't be shaken by a rational argument.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I'm still musing over this hypothetical 'event' whereby everyone on Earth is informed that God doesn't exist.
Maybe all the World leaders will simultaneously receive an e-mail from the no-god stating catorgorically that He or She doesn't exist.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Maybe that's where the confusion comes--I don't equate value with liking. There are things I do because I like them, but I can't kid myself and think they have any intrinsic value as such. There are other things I do because they do have value (for example, volunteer work), even though the work itself is very dislikable (fighting with the immigration bureaucracy, shudder).
Well, now you are misquoting me. I didn't equate value with liking; I gave it as an example of 'a connection between me and something else ... lots of feelings, thoughts, symbolism and so on'.
Anyway, no point in continuing.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I think the event that could demonstrate the non-existence of God has already happened: the crucifixion of Jesus. Muddled local politics and thoughtless brutality get the better of the world's best ever hope. Worst of all, when you think about it, it was obviously going to end this way; hope and love versus fearful power? A no brainer.. It always will end this way, always has done. The cross is the death of Jesus and of God, or of the hope that there might be a God.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
hatless: I think the event that could demonstrate the non-existence of God has already happened: the crucifixion of Jesus.
Wow, that's a good one.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anyway, no point in continuing.
that;s a bit extreme... oh, I see, you mean on this thread...
I think that LambChopped is narrowing meaning to a very specific thing, the one thing that gives them personal meaning.
Meaning is much wider than that, and covers interpersonal, work, projects, art, music, helping others, the wonder of the world, laughter... and a million other things that make up this glorious life we live!
I see no reason there has to be a universal meaning, in fact a meaning like that, paradoxically to me, has little meaning at all...
Neil
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, now you are misquoting me. I didn't equate value with liking; I gave it as an example of 'a connection between me and something else ... lots of feelings, thoughts, symbolism and so on'.
Anyway, no point in continuing.
If I did, it was not intentional. Just confusion on my part. I'm sorry.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
hatless: I think the event that could demonstrate the non-existence of God has already happened: the crucifixion of Jesus.
Wow, that's a good one.
Yes, that must be why the disciples, after their leader was dispatched, shrugged their shoulders, shuffled off back to their fishing boats never to be heard of again.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
hatless: I think the event that could demonstrate the non-existence of God has already happened: the crucifixion of Jesus.
Wow, that's a good one.
Yes, that must be why the disciples, after their leader was dispatched, shrugged their shoulders, shuffled off back to their fishing boats never to be heard of again.
They did shuffle off back to their fishing boats. Not quite the end of the story, though.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
hatless: I think the event that could demonstrate the non-existence of God has already happened: the crucifixion of Jesus.
Wow, that's a good one.
Yes, that must be why the disciples, after their leader was dispatched, shrugged their shoulders, shuffled off back to their fishing boats never to be heard of again.
They did shuffle off back to their fishing boats. Not quite the end of the story, though.
Yes, it's a good example of precisely what it would look like. Yes, followers-- even close followers-- would be shattered, confused, and would react in a variety of ways, not unlike the different ways people respond to grief. But (if we believers are right about God), what seems like the final word will not, in fact, be the final word. Alternatively (if we believers are wrong about God) the human heart is capable of inventing an alternative narrative to explain the heart-stopping event.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
They did shuffle off back to their fishing boats. Not quite the end of the story, though.
Yes. Then something happened that made them so sure of God that they were willing to die for him. Can't remember what it was called though. Re- re-something.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd like to think that most people would still be able to find hope and meaning in their lives without the promise of pie in the sky.
I don't think it's necessarily via the promise of a rosy afterlife that religion infuses people's lives with meaning. Maybe for some people. I think if I found out there's no afterlife, we're just snuffed out, but there is a God who just made us that way, it wouldn't bug me overmuch and I'd still be a Christian. I'd mourn harder when people died, for sure.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's almost a cliché that the mainstream church clergy don't necessarily tell their congregations what they really believe, for fear of damaging their faith, and losing them from the church. If this involves out and out atheism, some find they have to hide their atheism, although there are others who openly retain their niche in the church. There are philosophical organisations they can join, such as the Sea of Faith.
I just think, though, that since most clergy are already nervous of getting too theologically radical with their congregations...
With the caveat that I couldn't get your first link to work, I would suggest it's only a cliche because people (although you're the only one I know) keep saying it. A few anecdotal stories as I suspect your link will show do not a trend make. Meanwhile, there are, as you well know, scores of clergy right here on the Ship-- where anonymity would protect them if they wanted to "come out" as an atheist or some other radical theology to terrible to tell their congregants-- and yet I don't see anyone here confessing to such a dire thing.
I find your continual references to this supposed but apparently unsubstantiated "fact" incredibly offensive. But I've told you that before. Whatever.
I'm sorry about the link not working.
I don't know why you put the word 'fact' in quotes. I didn't use that particular word, or claim that anything was 'factual'. A cliché is an overfamiliar idea (or phrase, etc). It may not tell the whole truth. In fact, it probably doesn't, as it's a blunt instrument, a stereotype. The cliché in question (which I modified with the word 'almost') may not even be informed by much actual contact with mainstream church clergy.
But the problem is that you seem to think I'm presuming to speak for your context when I bring certain issues up. That's not the case. I wouldn't dream of telling an American evangelical and intellectual 'how it is'. Your experience is obviously going to be very different from mine, and I wouldn't argue about that.
However, I live in an English city, and the churches I attend generally have smallish, elderly congregations. Most of the members are not particularly intellectual. Of course, some CofE churches (and even some Methodist and URC ones) are well-heeled, youthful and cerebral, but the scenario I'm in is fairly common. That being the case, it's understandable if the clergy don't feel they can share everything with their congregations. (I've heard clergymen say this more than once.) It's not that they're not trying to be duplicitous, and I don't think they're cynical people.
Having said that, atheism is obviously very extreme, and I wouldn't say it's widespread in the British clergy. Apparently 2% of CofE clergy are atheists, and 16% are agnostics. The older ones seem to be less certain than the younger ones. And there are obviously different ways of being an atheist. Some clergy will see it as compatible with their priestly role while others will struggle in some way.
I think there are few clergy on the Ship who don't necessarily share all their unorthodox theological perspectives with their congregations. But perhaps that discussion needs a thread of its own.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Svitlana is somewhere in the UK, but it seems that all of the clergy there (wherever it is they reside) are theologically illiterate, incapable of communicating anything effectively, up to their necks in hypocrisy and exercise a deceit in living a lifestyle they don't actually believe in. It sounds quite awful and we really only can but pray for her.
Please see what I said above. Also, regarding que sais-je's reference to 'Honest to God', this American text talks about the clergyman's difficulty in 'bridging the gap between the seminary and the pew'. So this isn't a problem that I've just made up, or that just impinges on what you see as the strange place where I have the misfortune to attend church....
Again, though, I fully accept that your situation is quite different. Your church may be quite cerebral, and your minister very much in tune intellectually with his/her flock. Such churches could be successful at publicly transitioning to some sort of Death of God theology if the scenario mentioned in the OP ever came about. But who knows? Fortunately the scenario is utterly unrealistic.
(BTW, I very much need and appreciate prayer, and the churches here could certainly do with it too, but an offer of prayer shouldn't be used as a form of criticism or sarcasm. Just criticise me plainly, if you must. Sorry if I've misunderstood you, though.)
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I actually don't think anything much would happen at all. Science and secularism has been chipping away at Christianity's claim to be 'the Truth' for a while now and have gradually been demonstrating that more and more doctrines and beliefs held by the churches are wrong or at best accretions of ritual onto a kernel of truth.
If people want to read this stuff it's out there, it's out there in post modern theologians, in Biblical criticism, in neuroscience, in Biology, in physics - we already have enough evidence to suggest to us that God as conceived in Christianity most likely does not exist.
But people still want to believe in something, on some level they NEED to believe in something. I think maybe it's a side effect of sentience. If there was somehow conclusive proof that God did not exist it too would be dismissed by people who had a deep investment in their truth and NEEDED to believe in it. I have a feeling the devil would be blamed just as he's blamed for planting fossils to test our faith.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't know why you put the word 'fact' in quotes. I didn't use that particular word, or claim that anything was 'factual'. A cliché is an overfamiliar idea (or phrase, etc). It may not tell the whole truth. In fact, it probably doesn't, as it's a blunt instrument, a stereotype. The cliché in question (which I modified with the word 'almost') may not even be informed by much actual contact with mainstream church clergy.
But the problem is that you seem to think I'm presuming to speak for your context when I bring certain issues up. That's not the case. I wouldn't dream of telling an American evangelical and intellectual 'how it is'. Your experience is obviously going to be very different from mine, and I wouldn't argue about that.
However, I live in an English city, and the churches I attend generally have smallish, elderly congregations. Most of the members are not particularly intellectual. Of course, some CofE churches (and even some Methodist and URC ones) are well-heeled, youthful and cerebral, but the scenario I'm in is fairly common. That being the case, it's understandable if the clergy don't feel they can share everything with their congregations. (I've heard clergymen say this more than once.) It's not that they're not trying to be duplicitous, and I don't think they're cynical people.
Having said that, atheism is obviously very extreme, and I wouldn't say it's widespread in the British clergy. Apparently 2% of CofE clergy are atheists, and 16% are agnostics. The older ones seem to be less certain than the younger ones. And there are obviously different ways of being an atheist. Some clergy will see it as compatible with their priestly role while others will struggle in some way.
I think there are few clergy on the Ship who don't necessarily share all their unorthodox theological perspectives with their congregations. But perhaps that discussion needs a thread of its own.)
Perhaps it does, and perhaps it should be in hell, because I find your comments hellishly offensive. fwiw.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
2% doesn't sound like very many to me. Anyway atheism was the accusation the Roman empire used to justify the first persecution of Christians so maybe it was ever thus.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Marvin, you points are fair enough, but you must admit, surely, that you're indulging in examples of the very worst stereotypes of 'religion' in order to make them.
The things I mentioned aren't "stereotypes", they're very real things that are really happening right now.
Granted, there are also many good things that are being done by religious people. But I think those people are also just good people, and would continue to feed the hungry, heal the sick, comfort the bereaved etc. even without the belief that God is telling them to do so.
Of course, that cuts both ways. BH, ISIS, etc. are largely made up of bad people, and they will continue to cause trouble. But without the ability to claim divine sanction for their evil they will be less able to recruit others to their cause, or to justify their actions to the wider world.
And as a nice little bonus, all the good people who do evil things because they honestly believe their God demands it would be able to stop doing them and focus on the good.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I actually don't think anything much would happen at all.
I agree. There is a logical problem with the OP. For a believer, God is the basis of Truth (even though we may constantly misunderstand it). How then could "God does not exist" be established? It couldn't correspond to divine Truth (big 'T') because if it's true there is no such thing. So it just a human empirical/rational conclusion - and could be erroneous. As an atheist I would take the same view, it could only at best, be 'subject to the current state of our knowledge'. I suspect people could adjust their theology if necessary ("What God really means is He doesn't exist in the way you think He does, He's much closer to my understanding of Him"). Millerism is a good example of such adjustments.
A message from God saying She did exist would be more of a problem for atheists. Suppose simultaneously everyone had the complete conviction of God's existence, I suspect it would be hard to explain on any scientific grounds except humans being capable of spontaneous global delusions. In which case any universally held belief becomes suspect. I'd prefer "God exists" in that scenario, as you say we need to believe in something and I prefer God to spontaneous global delusions.
The real problem would be if the Deity's existence was not only confirmed but She told us 'which' God she was. Perhaps fundamentalist Islam is the only true way! Maybe God supports the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But without the ability to claim divine sanction for their evil they will be less able to recruit others to their cause, or to justify their actions to the wider world.
Doesn't the divine sanction help the good guys to recruit as well?
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
...If people want to read this stuff it's out there, it's out there in post modern theologians, in Biblical criticism, in neuroscience, in Biology, in physics - we already have enough evidence to suggest to us that God as conceived in Christianity most likely does not exist.
That's a bit of a stretch, quite a claim.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But without the ability to claim divine sanction for their evil they will be less able to recruit others to their cause, or to justify their actions to the wider world.
Doesn't the divine sanction help the good guys to recruit as well?
The good guys don't need divine sanction to the same extent, because the things they're trying to get people to do are good. There's no law against doing good things, and they don't come with any social disapproval. People would want to do them anyway.
Contrast evil things, where the divine sanction is needed in order to overcome the laws and social disapproval that work against them.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I thought this was interesting and hadn't heard it mentioned: The Methodist Church in the UK is encouraging members to give up "Church" for Lent. Elsewhere I read that some are encouraging believers to listen carefully to Atheists (philosophers, writers etc) for Lent.
I wonder how contemplating quote unquote "the end of Christianity" might help Christians..
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The good guys don't need divine sanction to the same extent, because the things they're trying to get people to do are good. There's no law against doing good things, and they don't come with any social disapproval. People would want to do them anyway.
Nice theory, but for instance I don't see much evidence of an innate desire to spend more money on charity than on personal possessions in many of us. I think there's quite a strong innate desire to be selfish.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The good guys don't need divine sanction to the same extent, because the things they're trying to get people to do are good. There's no law against doing good things, and they don't come with any social disapproval. People would want to do them anyway.
Nice theory, but for instance I don't see much evidence of an innate desire to spend more money on charity than on personal possessions in many of us. I think there's quite a strong innate desire to be selfish.
Yeah, but I don't see that much in the church either, consumerism has won.
I think Marvin is right, some people will want to help people whether motivated by faith or not, as it has other benefits of fulfilling our natural empathetic tendencies, it is seen a being good by society, helps personal happiness and creates meaning.
In our fictional post-theistic world good people will continue to be good, and bad people continue to be bad.
Neil
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Having said that, atheism is obviously very extreme, and I wouldn't say it's widespread in the British clergy. Apparently 2% of CofE clergy are atheists, and 16% are agnostics. The older ones seem to be less certain than the younger ones. And there are obviously different ways of being an atheist. Some clergy will see it as compatible with their priestly role while others will struggle in some way.
Only 2%? I think the number is irrelevant, since a large percentage of people who won´t declare themselves to be atheists engage in some type of theology that defines any specifically religious belief as "myth", including the ressurrection and the incarnation. And that seems to be the NORM, not the exception in mainline protestantism. The question "why are they priests if they don´t believe in God?" is not hard to answear. Well, they do it because it´s their job. If they weren´t paid for that, or had the capacity to find any other job that would pay as much, then they´d probably not even be church-goers, let alone priests.
The you have the social bla bla bla sermons in this churches. Not because they care for the poor or the ecology, but simply because they have to fill the void caused by the fact they won´t touch in any specifically religious subject.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Only 2%? I think the number is irrelevant, since a large percentage of people who won´t declare themselves to be atheists engage in some type of theology that defines any specifically religious belief as "myth", including the ressurrection and the incarnation. And that seems to be the NORM, not the exception in mainline protestantism.
Really? Odd, then, that I have encountered it fairly rarely in my 50+ years in mainline Protestantism. I've also for the most part managed to avoid encountering the preachers who are hesitant to touch religious subjects, or who shy away from preaching the incarnation and the resurrection.
What's your evidence?
[ 12. February 2016, 13:30: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
The real problem would be if the Deity's existence was not only confirmed but She told us 'which' God she was. Perhaps fundamentalist Islam is the only true way! Maybe God supports the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Reminding me of the old joke about the Catholic priest on the phone to Rome:
"Hello? Holy Father? I have good news and I have bad news."
"What's the good news?"
"The Lord has returned! I can see him with my own eyes!"
"That's wonderful! What could possibly be bad news?"
"I'm in Salt Lake City."
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think the event that could demonstrate the non-existence of God has already happened: the crucifixion of Jesus. Muddled local politics and thoughtless brutality get the better of the world's best ever hope. Worst of all, when you think about it, it was obviously going to end this way; hope and love versus fearful power? A no brainer.. It always will end this way, always has done. The cross is the death of Jesus and of God, or of the hope that there might be a God.
Very interesting post. These ideas have probably impelled many atheists to focus on the omnipotence of God, and ask, well, where is it, and what use is it, in the face of so much suffering in the world?
As against that, some very ingenious explanations by theists, for example, that God works via weakness and humiliation, not 'the power and the glory'.
But in fact, there are a ton of ideas like this - I find Simone Weil's ideas about God's withdrawal very interesting, and they are similar to some in Jewish mysticism. (God withdraws so that creation can be).
But then, again, you have to stop and ask, so what? So there is a God who is withdrawn, or who is weak, or emptied out? What good is this?
But then as Weil also says, if I withdraw (in the sense of ego-extinction), something transcendent seems to appear. What is this? Is this the light of the world in everything? But then this is found in some areas of Buddhism.
Well, this is just my ongoing self-talk.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The good guys don't need divine sanction to the same extent, because the things they're trying to get people to do are good. There's no law against doing good things, and they don't come with any social disapproval. People would want to do them anyway.
Nice theory, but for instance I don't see much evidence of an innate desire to spend more money on charity than on personal possessions in many of us. I think there's quite a strong innate desire to be selfish.
It is oft quotes that religious give more to charity. However, it is only by 10%. Some of that 10% goes to the religious organisation itself.* With that factored out, the difference drops significantly.
Given that many religious organisations have quotas, institutional guilt and the advantage of being organised, it doesn't put faith in a massively huge positive as far as personal motivation.
*I don't mean administrative costs for the charitable giving, but running the church.
[ 12. February 2016, 14:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Having said that, atheism is obviously very extreme, and I wouldn't say it's widespread in the British clergy. Apparently 2% of CofE clergy are atheists, and 16% are agnostics. The older ones seem to be less certain than the younger ones. And there are obviously different ways of being an atheist. Some clergy will see it as compatible with their priestly role while others will struggle in some way.
Only 2%? I think the number is irrelevant, since a large percentage of people who won´t declare themselves to be atheists engage in some type of theology that defines any specifically religious belief as "myth", including the ressurrection and the incarnation. And that seems to be the NORM, not the exception in mainline protestantism. The question "why are they priests if they don´t believe in God?" is not hard to answear. Well, they do it because it´s their job. If they weren´t paid for that, or had the capacity to find any other job that would pay as much, then they´d probably not even be church-goers, let alone priests.
Firstly, I want to make it clear that I never said that a lot of ministers are atheists. My original point was that the clergy in historical denominations don't necessarily share their unorthodox theology with their congregations, and that this is fairly well known. This unorthodox theology may include atheism, as I implied, but in most cases surely it doesn't.
Secondly, I ought to emphasise that there are cultural differences in play here. That 2% figures refers to Anglican clergy in England, Wales And Scotland. However, my impression is that American 'mainline' churches, TEC in particular, have a much larger liberal contingent than is the case in Great Britain, which is where I live. The USA, after all, has a wide choice of evangelical/conservative alternatives, whereas GB is dominated by one denomination that has to be all things to all men. The alternative denominations here, whether liberal or conservative, are far more limited in terms of numbers, demographics and geographical presence. And even the moderate non-Anglican clergy (for example, in the slightly more liberal British Methodist Church) will be aware that there are some conservative members in their congregations.
Perhaps what this means is that American mainline clergy feel more able to be open about their liberal beliefs. As I say though, I'm aware that some mainstream clergy in GB do have more solidly and openly liberal credentials, and the kinds of people who worship with them will be fully aware of what that means. In general, though I think it's more likely to be something intimated and felt rather proclaimed loudly from pulpits.
You live in Brazil. I understand that various forms of evangelicalism are currently very strong there. Maybe this means that your experience is similar to the USA's - your mainline (or mainstream, as we say in the UK) church ministers are freer to pursue a more openly liberal theology because they know that most of their more conservative church members have already left, due to the plethora of evangelical/conservative alternatives.
What do you think?
Posted by Bronwyn (# 52) on
:
Personally I think I'd slip onto a deep depression. Although my faith has had different aspects over the years...the ritual and traditions and knowledge God is there somewhere helps. When I miss church(lots lately due to major surgery) I find my week more depressed less fuctional.
On a broader level...I wonder how morality would be affected. I'm not saying God is everyone's reason to act as a decent human being but I could see much more living for self not others. I wonder about considered value of life. As in a psychiatrist with no faith who will force treatment on a person who is intent to die.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Firstly, I want to make it clear that I never said that a lot of ministers are atheists.
Me neither. That´s why I said the number is "irrelevant". My point is exactly the opposite. Mainline clergy is not interested in being openly atheist, neither in defending theism. God is a "non-factor" in mainline denominations. Not that they will explicitly deny him, but their theology doesn´t need God at all. Take any social justice discourse from an atheist. Add some phrases talking metaphorically about "God", claiming that he demands us to love our neighbourse, which of course means, adopt a left-wing agenda. Then you have a mainline sermon. You can put the incarnation, the ressurection, God or whatever image you want in the sermon, but that´s merely an illustration.
quote:
My original point was that the clergy in historical denominations don't necessarily share their unorthodox theology with their congregations, and that this is fairly well known. This unorthodox theology may include atheism, as I implied, but in most cases surely it doesn't.
Agree. My point is not that the majority of mainline clergy are atheists. My point is they really don´t care. Wether God exists or not, it´s irrelevant for a mainline episcopalian or anglican. Of course, there are exceptions, with some being open about their non-belief in a theistic God. The fact that these exceptions can achieve high positions in these churches hierarchy means that, even if the rest of the clergy don´t share their extreme views, they simply don´t care. The fact that the episcopal church had openly atheists as bishop or dean of the national cathedral obviously doesn´t mean the majority of the clergy is also atheists. It simply means that they don´t care, because God is not a relevant part ot their theology. What matters is the social justice discourse.
quote:
Secondly, I ought to emphasise that there are cultural differences in play here. That 2% figures refers to Anglican clergy in England, Wales And Scotland. However, my impression is that American 'mainline' churches, TEC in particular, have a much larger liberal contingent than is the case in Great Britain, which is where I live. The USA, after all, has a wide choice of evangelical/conservative alternatives, whereas GB is dominated by one denomination that has to be all things to all men. The alternative denominations here, whether liberal or conservative, are far more limited in terms of numbers, demographics and geographical presence. And even the moderate non-Anglican clergy (for example, in the slightly more liberal British Methodist Church) will be aware that there are some conservative members in their congregations.
Perhaps what this means is that American mainline clergy feel more able to be open about their liberal beliefs. As I say though, I'm aware that some mainstream clergy in GB do have more solidly and openly liberal credentials, and the kinds of people who worship with them will be fully aware of what that means. In general, though I think it's more likely to be something intimated and felt rather proclaimed loudly from pulpits.
You live in Brazil. I understand that various forms of evangelicalism are currently very strong there. Maybe this means that your experience is similar to the USA's - your mainline (or mainstream, as we say in the UK) church ministers are freer to pursue a more openly liberal theology because they know that most of their more conservative church members have already left, due to the plethora of evangelical/conservative alternatives.
What do you think? [/QB]
No. The church I´m in has a lot of conservatives. You won´t find clergy being open about their "non-beliefs". You will find clergy preaching only about social justice, gender ideology and ecology. If someone say that we are all sinners and need to repent and have faith in Jesus in order to be saved, this person is going to be mocked or furiously criticized for being a "fundamentalist".
When all sermons are filled with stuff that any atheist left-wing person could agree 100%, and the mere affirmation of a creedal dogma is furiously attacked as being "fanatical", then you come to the conclusion that God and the christian religion have become irrelevant. They will not openly deny it because their job depends on that, but will simply avoid and roll their eyes over it. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Ah, I see. But you seem to find the situation with the clergy rather frustrating. The obvious question is, why would you stay in such a church when you have so many alternatives available?
You don't have to answer that question, of course; the point is that all of us, whether clergy or laity, have to look at the pros and cons when it comes to choosing or remaining at a particular church. The theology preached is a highly important factor, but evidently not the only one.
With regard to the OP, then, perhaps a church with clergy like yours would have a fair chance of reinventing itself and surviving. But it would still lose members.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ah, I see. But you seem to find the situation with the clergy rather frustrating. The obvious question is, why would you stay in such a church when you have so many alternatives available?
You don't have to answer that question, of course; the point is that all of us, whether clergy or laity, have to look at the pros and cons when it comes to choosing or remaining at a particular church. The theology preached is a highly important factor, but evidently not the only one.
With regard to the OP, then, perhaps a church with clergy like yours would have a fair chance of reinventing itself and surviving. But it would still lose members.
Well, actually there aren´t so many options. The fact that there are many denominations available in one country doesn´t mean all these denominations are present in every region, let alone in every city!
Where I live, there is only one traditional protestant denomination. The other churches are either catholic or pentecostal.
Plus, I don´t think I have to leave the denomination if my beliefs are according to our confessional documents and our constitution. People who do NOT believe this stuff should consider leaving...
The point is, most people who decide to become pastors do that when they are very young and they are very ingenous. They have a sincere faith in God and an honest desire to learn more about him and preach the gospel.
When they enter the seminary, they discover what is taught there is very different from what they expected. To hold orthodox christian views in the seminary is not only unnecessary, but it´s even a reason for a person to be seen as fundamentalist. After a few years of study, most will probably leave their old beliefs behind. However they are trained to conduct liturgy as if they actually believed all the stuff. You have to learn to be hypocritical. If the seminary is not enough to destroy your faith (many will give up on ministry before being ordained), a few more years in the ministry will do. After you have invested everything on becoming a minister and then realizes you don´t actually believe all that religious stuff what do you do? Well, you need your job to pay your bills, so you become a "liberal" or "progressive" christian, in other words: you don´t actually believe any of that christian stuff but you have to "liturgically" talk about God, and you fill the sermon part with lots of talk about gender, ecology, etc, and reject those whose opinions are influenced by the Bible or traditional christian beliefs as being "fundamentalist".
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
gorpo: Where I live, there is only one traditional protestant denomination. The other churches are either catholic or pentecostal.
What else would you want to become? Orthodox?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
gorpo: Where I live, there is only one traditional protestant denomination. The other churches are either catholic or pentecostal.
What else would you want to become? Orthodox?
Hey now.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Having said that, atheism is obviously very extreme, and I wouldn't say it's widespread in the British clergy. Apparently 2% of CofE clergy are atheists, and 16% are agnostics. The older ones seem to be less certain than the younger ones. And there are obviously different ways of being an atheist. Some clergy will see it as compatible with their priestly role while others will struggle in some way.
Only 2%? I think the number is irrelevant, since a large percentage of people who won´t declare themselves to be atheists engage in some type of theology that defines any specifically religious belief as "myth", including the ressurrection and the incarnation. And that seems to be the NORM, not the exception in mainline protestantism. The question "why are they priests if they don´t believe in God?" is not hard to answear. Well, they do it because it´s their job. If they weren´t paid for that, or had the capacity to find any other job that would pay as much, then they´d probably not even be church-goers, let alone priests.
Firstly, I want to make it clear that I never said that a lot of ministers are atheists. My original point was that the clergy in historical denominations don't necessarily share their unorthodox theology with their congregations, and that this is fairly well known. This unorthodox theology may include atheism, as I implied, but in most cases surely it doesn't.
...What do you think?
I know this wasn't directed toward me, but if I may continue to share my 2 cents...
I think you are repeating yourself. Yes, I understand you're not saying it is all clergy. Yes, I understand that you're talking about an undefined "unorthodox" theology of which atheism would be only one expression.
But again, as a clergyperson, I find it offensive. I find it offensive to suggest that clergy in any significant numbers, whether herre or in the UK, are as inauthentic as you are suggesting.
Yes, there are things we may or may not choose to "unpack" in a 20 minute sermon-- simply because they are too complex and require to much contextualization. But that seems light years away from what you are suggesting.
And yes, there probably are some clergy whose beliefs shift so significantly as to really disqualify them from ministry, but they are unwilling to leave behind their job (altho it's not like clergy are extraordinarily well paid...). But I don't believe that is anywhere near as significant a number as you seem to think. Our ministry, our work, is based more than anything else on authenticity. To suggest it is all a sham is a huge, offensive implication about our integrity.
Now, of course, in the end, there is no way to know. Neither you nor I know what is in the hearts and minds of anyone else-- whether clergy in the US, Brazil, or UK. We cannot know. I can only speak to my own experience, and the deep offense I find in your remarks.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What else would you want to become? Orthodox?
Hey now.
I couldn't resist
(I realise this is a tangent. Gorpo is talking about Brazil. The Orthodox church has a small but beautiful presence in that country. I know a number of Orthodox clergy, and I'm honoured to call them my friends.)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
cliffdweller
I didn't respond directly to your accusation above because I didn't really understand what was offensive, and didn't want to pursue the matter with you if you didn't think I was making any sense.
But I see now that you think I'm claiming that the clergy are by and large 'inauthentic'. This isn't a word I would use. Indeed, I'd say say that many moderate clergy in mainstream churches here try hard to respond in a pastorally sensitive way to the circumstances around them. That's a priority that they live up to authentically in their identity as caring and compassionate ministers of religion.
As I said in a post above, I don't think the clergy are bad people, nor that they're cynical. I haven't said that 'significant' numbers of clergy are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. If I thought that I wouldn't have much to do with them, but I still worship in historical, moderate churches week after week! In fact, I can't seem to tear myself away from them, in spite of everything!
I've never argued with any of the clergy or the theologians I've known about what they should or shouldn't be preaching - as if it were my job to tell them that! What I've done here is repeated some of the challenges as they've presented them to me, and what I've come across in academic texts and in the culture that I'm familiar with. I've made extrapolations about the USA and Brazil, but I admit I could well be wrong about those places. I'm very happy to be corrected there.
Once again, I accept that your experience is very different from mine, and I'm interested to hear more about that, when the opportunity arises. True, there's no point in me repeating myself when you could be helping us - me - understand where you're coming from. Diversity is what makes the world go round.
[ 12. February 2016, 19:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Well I certainly am trying and have been trying to help you understand my experience. If I'm failing at that perhaps it's because I'm simply flabbergasted that anyone would not see how offensive your suggestion would be. I may be reacting more strongly than others but I don't sense that I'm alone in this or that mine is a uniquely American experience in this regard.
Authenticity is about far more than just "pastoral sensibility" although that certainly helps. It's about integrity and congruency. It's about being honest and forthcoming, even or especially re our struggles, doubts, and conflicts. Some of us may at times find ourselves trapped in a congregation that won't allow for that degree of vulnerability but I don't believe it's the norm.
As I said before, neither of us can know for sure which of us is correct re how many clergy are living a lie. We can't know what's in someone else's heart or mind. All I can speak to with assurance is my own. Which is what I have done
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
You are certainly not alone, but at least she's consistent.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's not offensive in the slightest SvitlanaV2.
You've handled it brilliantly.
The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive. Very rarely give the best sermon; 'Me too'. Very rarely challenge the evil, insane, irrational, superstitious, intolerant, magical beliefs of the hand that feeds them. Worse, they are supine in the face of their almost universal warmongering, homophobic superiors. I find that failure to be infinitely depressingly offensive. And forgivable as it shows how pathetic and weak and frightened and ignorant they are.
I've challenged the insanity of Greg Boyd's demiurgy here and no one took offense. So I don't see how they could possibly take offense at what you say.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
...If people want to read this stuff it's out there, it's out there in post modern theologians, in Biblical criticism, in neuroscience, in Biology, in physics - we already have enough evidence to suggest to us that God as conceived in Christianity most likely does not exist.
That's a bit of a stretch, quite a claim.
Well I did couch it with 'most likely' as I'm not trying to come across as saying that people who hold faith are stupid or deluded. I don't think they are. I am a baby Atheist (or rather non-Theist) and I don't want to be I just have come to that conclusion after many many years of thought and struggle. To quote a victim of the Inquisition: "I am so made that I cannot believe."
I just know that my reading around this area which is increasing wide ranging and voracious as I really want to know WHY it is we are the way we are and WHY we act the way we do, indicates that the claims of classical Christianity are not objectively true in their descriptions of human nature and in their solutions to that description.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Don't back-pedal Macrina. He does NOT exist. A far greater, far more ineffable, far better one does.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
Double post. Double post.
Interesting that everyone is worrying about morality and then being careful to say that it's not that God encourages people to be moral but they're worried nontheless.
My own experience, which is only my own, is that my altruistic behaviour as a practicing Christian was always tinged with guilt and worry and obligation. Should I give to this organisation who do some things the Church doesn't like? Is it wrong not to give change to the homeless person when I know it might be spent on drugs but God said Jesus is everywhere, what if I get to heaven and they turn me away etc etc. This is a feature of my cognitive make up. I have issues with anxiety and it shows through like that.
Since I went through my slow de-conversion I have a much less anxiety driven process towards helping others since I feel less 'overseen'. I can describe my realisation that we ALL have PERSONAL responsbility to own our stuff and support our communities best by sharing a quote from an Atheist comedian who described the moment she realised she didn't believe in God as: 'Oh my God, there's no one minding the store.'
As a baby Atheist I feel a very strong commitment to helping others and my community because I don't think there's any divine force out there that will do it for me. My prayers won't help but my donation of time or money or a shoulder to cry on will. Asking God to divert a hurricane or help earthquake victims will do nothing but again charitable donations and organising events to raise money will, behaving in an ecologically sustainable way benefits future generations etc. I feel MORE socially responsible and morally committed as an Atheist, not less. And my motivations and mental state are healthier (for me) than they were as a Christian.
So no I don't think that if God were proven to not exist we would all become amoral monsters. If we did then there are already a lot of amoral monsters you meet every day and they haven't ruined us all yet.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I've challenged the insanity of Greg Boyd's demiurgy here and no one took offense. So I don't see how they could possibly take offense at what you say.
Disagreeing with a the theological musings of an academic who himself would acknowledge he's striking out in new and uncharted territory is not at all the same thing as questioning someone's integrity.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's not offensive in the slightest SvitlanaV2.
Yes, it is. Or at the very least, it's a gross overgeneralization based on anecdata.
quote:
The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive. Very rarely give the best sermon; 'Me too'. Very rarely challenge the evil, insane, irrational, superstitious, intolerant, magical beliefs of the hand that feeds them. Worse, they are supine in the face of their almost universal warmongering, homophobic superiors. I find that failure to be infinitely depressingly offensive. And forgivable as it shows how pathetic and weak and frightened and ignorant they are.
Apparently, the clergy you've encountered are quite, quite different from most of the clergy I have encountered.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well I certainly am trying and have been trying to help you understand my experience. If I'm failing at that perhaps it's because I'm simply flabbergasted that anyone would not see how offensive your suggestion would be.
You've said a bit about your experience, but I think I've said more (and more than enough, you'll say) about mine. I don't quite understand your denominational or demographic context, nor the general church culture you're working with.
Basically, I don't understand how someone's experience can be 'offensive', just different. I should say that I haven't experienced my life in the church as a struggle with inauthentic clergy who lack integrity. The ones I know are indeed people who give a lot of themselves. Perhaps too much, in some ways.
Anyway, you and I have seen eye to eye on a few things in the past, though, and I'm sure we will again.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's not offensive in the slightest SvitlanaV2.
You've handled it brilliantly.
The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive. Very rarely give the best sermon; 'Me too'. Very rarely challenge the evil, insane, irrational, superstitious, intolerant, magical beliefs of the hand that feeds them. Worse, they are supine in the face of their almost universal warmongering, homophobic superiors. I find that failure to be infinitely depressingly offensive. And forgivable as it shows how pathetic and weak and frightened and ignorant they are.
I've challenged the insanity of Greg Boyd's demiurgy here and no one took offense. So I don't see how they could possibly take offense at what you say.
I had to look Greg Boyd up. He seems like a very interesting character.
I'm glad you have an idea of where I'm coming from. TBH, I don't think the clergy are any worse than other Christians. We could easily talk about the recurring problems that crop up in lay behaviour, attitudes and expectations in the kinds of churches and contexts I'm talking about.
Nevertheless, I've been blessed by the ministry of lay and ordained Christians for all of my life, even when I've felt critical of one thing or another. And I hope they've had positive feelings about me, for all my failures and missteps.
In general, I'd say I have greater problems with the structure of the church than with any particular group of people within it, or with any particular theology I've encountered (though I realise that other people have had run-ins with some very scary theology). IMO, the possible silver lining in the dreadful scenario mentioned in the OP is that it some cases it might lead to a de-construction of church hierarchies and an attempt to start again with small groups of defiant monotheists! But I wouldn't expect anyone here to bear with me on that idea!
[ 13. February 2016, 01:39: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well I certainly am trying and have been trying to help you understand my experience. If I'm failing at that perhaps it's because I'm simply flabbergasted that anyone would not see how offensive your suggestion would be.
You've said a bit about your experience, but I think I've said more (and more than enough, you'll say) about mine. I don't quite understand your denominational or demographic context, nor the general church culture you're working with.
Sure, and we could go there, but I'm not really sure how that's relevant.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Basically, I don't understand how someone's experience can be 'offensive', just different.
Sure, but I'm not objecting to your experience. I'm objecting to a speculative assessment you've made about the inner life of other people. As I've said a couple times already, that's something neither of us can know for sure. You have no idea what the inner thoughts/beliefs are of the clergy in your community or nation-- and neither do I. My default assumption, is, until proven otherwise (as sadly, sometimes is the case) is that they are people of integrity. Your default suggestion is that they are not. Yes, I know you keep saying you don't think lying to your congregation about your true beliefs would indicate a lack of integrity, but you're wrong about that. But your repeated suggestion that there's a meaningful percentage of clergy doing just that is not your experience, it is your assumption. In fact, apparently your experience is quite the reverse:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I should say that I haven't experienced my life in the church as a struggle with inauthentic clergy who lack integrity. The ones I know are indeed people who give a lot of themselves. Perhaps too much, in some ways.
Although, again, you seem to be confusing authenticity with being a nice person who is generous and kind. The two are not unrelated, of course, but are not synonymous.
And yes, I too, am sure we will agree on something again some time. But that doesn't make your comments here any less offensive or hurtful.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
To respond late to the original topic, the High School I went to was run by Jewish Secular Humanists who for about a hundred years decided that they probably didn't believe in God but like to get together once a week to discuss moral and ethical issues and to do projects together.
I suspect a lot of churches after this revelation would probably keep going as a social organization to do good things together.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
One at a time.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I've challenged the insanity of Greg Boyd's demiurgy here and no one took offense. So I don't see how they could possibly take offense at what you say.
Disagreeing with a the theological musings of an academic who himself would acknowledge he's striking out in new and uncharted territory is not at all the same thing as questioning someone's integrity.
What new and uncharted territory? I'm being kind by calling him insane as the alternative to mad is bad. Is lacking in integrity. Which is in fact far more likely. Having gone down a cul-de-sac, down a hole, all he can do is dig deeper, hunker down, justify it and seduce the gullible, rather than admit he was wrong. Bad makes mad.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Next:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's not offensive in the slightest SvitlanaV2.
Yes, it is. Or at the very least, it's a gross overgeneralization based on anecdata.
quote:
The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive. Very rarely give the best sermon; 'Me too'. Very rarely challenge the evil, insane, irrational, superstitious, intolerant, magical beliefs of the hand that feeds them. Worse, they are supine in the face of their almost universal warmongering, homophobic superiors. I find that failure to be infinitely depressingly offensive. And forgivable as it shows how pathetic and weak and frightened and ignorant they are.
Apparently, the clergy you've encountered are quite, quite different from most of the clergy I have encountered.
Yes they are 95% Anglican. The 'non-conformist' are even worse. I met a wonderful post-Baptist last summer though, as well as meeting the peerless Steve Chalke. Of the, oooooooh, 20+ of the Anglican I've encountered in over 10 years, including the egregious Mark Stibbe, they are ALL whipped party men.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What new and uncharted territory? I'm being kind by calling him insane as the alternative to mad is bad. Is lacking in integrity. Which is in fact far more likely. Having gone down a cul-de-sac, down a hole, all he can do is dig deeper, hunker down, justify it and seduce the gullible, rather than admit he was wrong. Bad makes mad.
Martin, I do wish you'd speak less in riddles. I'm interested in your critique of Boyd, but I can't make head-nor-tail of it. In words simple enough for this fool to understand, can you explain to me why you think he is insane?
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.
I appreciate your sentiment and know what you're trying to say, but I might look like one in practice but I'm not in my inner self where it actually counts.
As for your previous post I'd almost agree with you, I want to go Spinoza on myself but I'm taking all my time getting my head around what he's saying before I claim to completely accept his claims.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Martin:
quote:
The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive. Very rarely give the best sermon; 'Me too'. Very rarely challenge the evil, insane, irrational, superstitious, intolerant, magical beliefs of the hand that feeds them. Worse, they are supine in the face of their almost universal warmongering, homophobic superiors. I find that failure to be infinitely depressingly offensive. And forgivable as it shows how pathetic and weak and frightened and ignorant they are.
As someone who usually hits the mark for me I must confess you've drifted far off it on this one. Threads like this and discussion around subjects like this are always going to descend into silly charicatures and generalisations and stereotypes. It's the way of the ship and an easy way to obfuscate an argument and make it become so tangled that it's intractable. But I honestly thought better of you.
What we get here, instead of something insightful, is what some on this ship like to indulge in - clergy bashing. I know that in saying it there's a strong possibility that I might get thread lynched, but I must be honest and say that I've noticed it here on the ship many times over the years. It runs similar to the politician or the bank manager argument; they're all the same, they're all corrupt and they're all worthy of our contempt. So lets break this down to see what we have here.
'The clergy', talked of in general terms as if they were one homogenous group.
All of them seem to be false; they never 'get real'.
All of them are presented as dishonest.
All of them are presented as self protecting and cocooned, never 'raw'.
They are all poor excuses for a preacher - now granted you might be on to something here......but all of them?
They never challenge evil in the many forms you list. I grew up in Northern Ireland during the so-called 'troubles'. I think it's this that I find the most crass and offensive. I know clergy who were crippled, shot, had their churches burned down, were ostracised from entire communities, had their families threatened and had to leave the country all because they stood up to evil. There are numerous places around the world where things like this continue to today. This statement to me is the most disingenuous and a callous, self-serving deceit.
Clergy are universal in warmongering
Really now; you're just getting over excited here.
All clergy are homophobic and prop up their homophobic superiors. The church does face a crisis over this one, but I haven't seen clergy toeing the line in any great numbers. There is a lot that has made me very angry and in my experience there are a small number of clergy who have what can genuinely be called 'homophobic' opinion. I know the line that all clergy are homophobic is frankly a lie.
All clergy are pathetic, frightened, weak and ignorant. I'd agree with you here, but it hasn't stopped many clergy doing the noble, brave, strong and informed thing.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.
I appreciate your sentiment and know what you're trying to say, but I might look like one in practice but I'm not in my inner self where it actually counts.
As for your previous post I'd almost agree with you, I want to go Spinoza on myself but I'm taking all my time getting my head around what he's saying before I claim to completely accept his claims.
I have no idea how you could have read that penultimate paragraph as Macrina being a real faithful Christian. Shows that people read what they want to read into things.
(as an aside, many of us have been through a similar journey as you have Macrina, and it is an awesome life changing journey to make!)
Neil
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes they are 95% Anglican. The 'non-conformist' are even worse. I met a wonderful post-Baptist last summer though, as well as meeting the peerless Steve Chalke. Of the, oooooooh, 20+ of the Anglican I've encountered in over 10 years, including the egregious Mark Stibbe, they are ALL whipped party men.
Fair enough. But when you simply say "The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive," the clear implication is that you're talking about the clergy in general, not just the 20+ members of the clergy you have encountered over the last 10 years. That's the problem I had with what you said—taking a very small sample (and what you said may be true of that sample) and extrapolating it "the clergy" as a whole.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not objecting to your experience. I'm objecting to a speculative assessment you've made about the inner life of other people. As I've said a couple times already, that's something neither of us can know for sure. You have no idea what the inner thoughts/beliefs are of the clergy in your community or nation-- and neither do I. My default assumption, is, until proven otherwise (as sadly, sometimes is the case) is that they are people of integrity. Your default suggestion is that they are not. Yes, I know you keep saying you don't think lying to your congregation about your true beliefs would indicate a lack of integrity, but you're wrong about that. But your repeated suggestion that there's a meaningful percentage of clergy doing just that is not your experience, it is your assumption. In fact, apparently your experience is quite the reverse
[...]
You seem to be confusing authenticity with being a nice person who is generous and kind. The two are not unrelated, of course, but are not synonymous.
It was a theologian and clergyman (a moderately well-known one) who said to me that the clergy don't always feel that they can share their theological perspectives with their congregations. I've heard similar remarks from other clergy.
Some of the links I've posted here and other references I've come across elsewhere suggest that this is not a totally unusual and bizarre experience for ministers. Considering the context in which many of our clergy here work, it makes sense to me. In effect, I do think context matters - it's not irrelevant to ask what sort of denominational culture the ministers in question come from, or what the demographics of their congregations are. I know a theologian who's just switched from his previous inner city, working class church allegiances (across several churches) to a university congregation, because he wants more intellectual engagement and openness in church life. All these things are a part of my 'experience'.
However, in my original comment I also talked about perceptions. I then said that perceptions aren't always reflective of reality. IOW, it's not necessarily the case that vast numbers of clergy are hiding things, but it may be seen as an issue by a number of people in the society. FWIW, over half of British people see the clergy as trustworthy. 'Trustworthy' is a term that could cover a whole range of attitudes and concerns, of course.
I quite agree with you that I haven't looked into the heart of every Christian minister to see how much 'integrity' they have. That wasn't what I was claiming to do. Neither was I engaging in 'clergy bashing', as another poster here has put it. I've tried to be positive about the clergy throughout this thread. I always try to understand the challenges they face, which is why I think talking about a lack of integrity isn't generally relevant. We may have to disagree on that. But I'm not going to say the clergy are perfect. If I say how much I value their ministry and efforts then I have a right to mention potentially problematic issues too. After all, it's not as if I think the congregations are absolutely wonderful! I've had my issues with them too!
Anyway, I'm not sure we're going to get much further on this topic. You have sparked off a deeper interest in me, though. This whole area would probably benefit from more research, particularly in the British and wider European context.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It was a theologian and clergyman (a moderately well-known one) who said to me that the clergy don't always feel that they can share their theological perspectives with their congregations. I've heard similar remarks from other clergy.
Some of the links I've posted here and other references I've come across elsewhere suggest that this is not a totally unusual and bizarre experience for ministers.
However, in my original comment I also talked about perceptions. I then said that perceptions aren't always reflective of reality.
All of which goes to my point that I am not arguing with your
experience but rather your assumptions. None of us can have an "experience" of other people's inner life.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, in my original comment I also talked about perceptions. I then said that perceptions aren't always reflective of reality.
IOW, it's not necessarily the case that vast numbers of clergy are hiding things, but it may be seen as an issue by a number of people in the society. FWIW, over half of British people see the clergy as trustworthy. 'Trustworthy' is a term that could cover a whole range of attitudes and concerns, of course.
I quite agree with you that I haven't looked into the heart of every Christian minister to see how much 'integrity' they have. That wasn't what I was claiming to do. Neither was I engaging in 'clergy bashing', as another poster here has put it.
Reread what you said above and the link you provided and you'll see precisely why so many of us feel like you are, however unintentionally, "clergy bashing", and why it does, in fact, go to the heart of integrity. When you suggest that clergy in some significant numbers are preaching something that is significantly different from what they actually believe, that IS an issue of integrity. It lends very much to the perception of clergy as "untrustworthy" (of course, other things-- clergy sex scandals, televangelist's misbehavior, are a huge factor as well). In a field where trust and authenticity is everything, that's an issue those of us who are clergy take very, very seriously. For those who are not in this field, it may seem harmless to engage in innuendo & speculation about other people's inner life, but for those of us who have chosen this life it is a violent assault on the foundation of our ministry and purpose.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've tried to be positive about the clergy throughout this thread. I always try to understand the challenges they face, which is why I think talking about a lack of integrity isn't generally relevant. We may have to disagree on that.
And I get that you believe that. I get that you think by saying clergy are kind or nice people or hard-working you think you're balancing out your accusation that they have a fundamental lack of integrity. Please reread the above. Think about what you are doing, what you are saying. Because, again, this is not a trivial matter to us. It's not something we can just "agree to disagree". And please, stop saying "integrity" is irrelevant. It is the ESSENCE of what you are saying and could not be more relevant, again, whether you recognize that or not.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But I'm not going to say the clergy are perfect. If I say how much I value their ministry and efforts then I have a right to mention potentially problematic issues too.
NO ONE is suggesting that clergy are perfect. NO ONE is suggesting that clergy don't have the same struggles, challenges, temptations, and doubts that everyone else has.
What I and others are suggesting is that clergy have an ethical obligation to be as transparent as possible about those struggles, challenges, temptations and doubts. There are constraints of course, for a number of reasons. But we are called first of all to be authentic and that requires being honest about those things. The failure to do so is an issue of integrity. Which itself is something we all struggle with.
If you value the clergy in your community then yes, you do have a right-- even a high purpose-- in raising problematic issues. However, what you should think twice about doing is undermining the very foundation of their work through reckless speculation about their inner integrity-- which is, again, precisely what you are doing. If you truly value their work, that's something you would avoid as much as is possible.
There is a time when lack of integrity must be spoken, must be said-- again, the clergy sex scandals, the televangelist debacles-- clear examples. But one doesn't recklessly make allegations about someone's integrity without some shred of evidence to suggest there's a possibility that is what's happening.
Again, integrity: not a small matter for me, so not something I liable to just let drop. Sorry.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What new and uncharted territory? I'm being kind by calling him insane as the alternative to mad is bad. Is lacking in integrity. Which is in fact far more likely. Having gone down a cul-de-sac, down a hole, all he can do is dig deeper, hunker down, justify it and seduce the gullible, rather than admit he was wrong. Bad makes mad.
Martin, I do wish you'd speak less in riddles. I'm interested in your critique of Boyd, but I can't make head-nor-tail of it. In words simple enough for this fool to understand, can you explain to me why you think he is insane?
Probably needs to be a separate thread, but when he does, expect a lengthy (and probably pedantic) rebuttal from me.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
All clergy are pathetic, frightened, weak and ignorant. I'd agree with you here, but it hasn't stopped many clergy doing the noble, brave, strong and informed thing.
One of the most beautiful things I've read on the Ship. A challenge worthy of struggling to live up to.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The fact that there are many denominations available in one country doesn´t mean all these denominations are present in every region, let alone in every city!
Where I live [in Brazil], there is only one traditional protestant denomination. The other churches are either catholic or pentecostal.
Plus, I don´t think I have to leave the denomination if my beliefs are according to our confessional documents and our constitution. People who do NOT believe this stuff should consider leaving...
The point is, most people who decide to become pastors do that when they are very young and they are very ingenous. They have a sincere faith in God and an honest desire to learn more about him and preach the gospel.
When they enter the seminary, they discover what is taught there is very different from what they expected. To hold orthodox christian views in the seminary is not only unnecessary, but it´s even a reason for a person to be seen as fundamentalist. After a few years of study, most will probably leave their old beliefs behind. However they are trained to conduct liturgy as if they actually believed all the stuff. You have to learn to be hypocritical. If the seminary is not enough to destroy your faith (many will give up on ministry before being ordained), a few more years in the ministry will do. After you have invested everything on becoming a minister and then realizes you don´t actually believe all that religious stuff what do you do? Well, you need your job to pay your bills, so you become a "liberal" or "progressive" christian, in other words: you don´t actually believe any of that christian stuff but you have to "liturgically" talk about God, and you fill the sermon part with lots of talk about gender, ecology, etc, and reject those whose opinions are influenced by the Bible or traditional christian beliefs as being "fundamentalist".
In Britain there are evangelical seminaries that Anglican evangelical ordinands can attend, where their faith is presumably less likely to be compromised. But this is possible because the evangelical constituency in the CofE is longstanding, and is a growing and increasingly strong-minded proportion of churchgoing Anglicans as a whole. Is this the case for your denomination in Brazil? Your country is massive, though, and even if there is a choice of theological colleges perhaps candidates prefer to attend the one closest to where they live, regardless of what kind it is?
Some people might simply blame the seminary system for creating clergy that are out of touch with congregations. Some of my previous comments on this thread have been informed by this concern. Of course, this isn't a challenge for every single church, but I've come across enough comments in various places that suggest it's an issue for many of them.
OTOH, as the experience of your church and the CofE suggests, maybe a bigger problem is that people of different theological persuasions are frequently attracted to historical and prestigious religious institutions. These people don't always have a strong shared purpose other than their regard for the institution. (In fact, a denomination like the RCC sees the veneration of the institution as one of its cornerstones.) This is one reason why I'm not keen on the institutionalisation of Christianity, and the trappings that go with that. I'm not convinced that the 'broad church' solution, with all of its internal frustrations and public disagreements, and a veneration of church as an institution, represents real unity.
However, there's no real solution, is there? The forces at play are unassailable so we just struggle on.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In Britain there are evangelical seminaries that Anglican evangelical ordinands can attend, where their faith is presumably less likely to be compromised. But this is possible because the evangelical constituency in the CofE is longstanding, and is a growing and increasingly strong-minded proportion of churchgoing Anglicans as a whole. Is this the case for your denomination in Brazil? Your country is massive, though, and even if there is a choice of theological colleges perhaps candidates prefer to attend the one closest to where they live, regardless of what kind it is?
Some people might simply blame the seminary system for creating clergy that are out of touch with congregations. Some of my previous comments on this thread have been informed by this concern. Of course, this isn't a challenge for every single church, but I've come across enough comments in various places that suggest it's an issue for many of them.
OTOH, as the experience of your church and the CofE suggests, maybe a bigger problem is that people of different theological persuasions are frequently attracted to historical and prestigious religious institutions.
You seem to be unclear on the purpose of theological education-- or really of education as a whole. The purpose is not to bolster pre-existing beliefs, the purpose is to gain a broader perspective of the diversity of beliefs/ideas within the field as a whole. One doesn't or shouldn't choose a seminary based solely on it's ability to reinforce what you already know or believe.
It's interesting that your link above does not seem to support what you have been claiming here-- in fact it does the exact opposite. Your link shows:
1. That some people (quite a few, actually) think the introduction of "liberal theology" by clergy that is in conflict with the congregation's beliefs is the reason for decline in church attendance. The fact that there is such a perception would seem to be pretty clear evidence that many clergy do NOT shrink back from preaching things that conflict with their congregation's beliefs. If all they did was preach what people want to hear, there would be no such perception.
2. Interestingly, your link suggests that demographic considerations rather than liberal theology are a greater factor in church decline. (This is a much-debated and much-researched topic of which there is far more data to consider-- but that's another thread).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
NO ONE is suggesting that clergy are perfect. NO ONE is suggesting that clergy don't have the same struggles, challenges, temptations, and doubts that everyone else has.
What I and others are suggesting is that clergy have an ethical obligation to be as transparent as possible about those struggles, challenges, temptations and doubts. There are constraints of course, for a number of reasons. But we are called first of all to be authentic and that requires being honest about those things.
I think my point is that, whether or not this obligation exists, they're not always open about these things, and not always perceived to be open. This lack of openness sometimes contributes towards other problems - clergy stress is a considerable issue, so I understand. But I'd probably have to gather a forest of references and links to give you a sense that this isn't something I'm just making up in my head, and I don't think you want me to do that.
I didn't realise initially that you were a minister, so I understand now why you're taking some of these comments personally. On the plus side, though, as I said, I'm not talking about you personally, nor the churches and clergy you know, if they don't face the kinds of issues I'm referring to here. It's positive to hear that there are very many clergy who are utterly open about their 'struggles, challenges, temptations and doubts.'
Maybe I need to attend different churches and stop hanging out with the kind of ministers who mostly mention these problems in private!
Regarding my most recent post, I know the link says that liberal theology doesn't have to lead to decline. The issue was whether it leads to a gap between clergy and congregations. The gap occurs, IMO, because the clergy in many cases (but not in the cases you're aware of, I accept that) don't necessarily feel able to share their theological insights with their congregations. (If you remember, a theologian I know used to advise his students not to share certain ideas with their congregations.)
I do believe that if the clergy were better able to share their most challenging theological insights with congregations there would be less of a gap. Perhaps this requires better training in communication skills, or a different approach towards human relationships in church.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
... As a baby Atheist ...
To me you sound a very grown up one.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding my most recent post, I know the link says that liberal theology doesn't have to lead to decline. The issue was whether it leads to a gap between clergy and congregations. The gap occurs, IMO, because the clergy in many cases (but not in the cases you're aware of, I accept that) don't necessarily feel able to share their theological insights with their congregations. (If you remember, a theologian I know used to advise his students not to share certain ideas with their congregations.)
OK, I've said this before but you obviously didn't hear it. Please try to listen: your link says the exact opposite of that. Your link says that some people blame the decline in church attendance on the mismatch of clergy beliefs and congregational beliefs. That implies the OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting. If clergy in fact were NOT forthcoming about their beliefs, if indeed they adjusted their preaching to match their congregations beliefs, there would be no perceivable "gap". The gap would be entirely an inner experience of clergy, and therefore could not possibly be even a perceived cause of the decline in attendance. The fact that some people do, in fact, blame the decline on that gap is evidence of precisely the OPPOSITE of what you've suggested-- it suggests that clergy ARE preaching things their congregants don't agree with, that they ARE being, at the very least, honest and forthcoming about their beliefs.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think my point is that, whether or not this obligation exists, they're not always open about these things, and not always perceived to be open. This lack of openness sometimes contributes towards other problems - clergy stress is a considerable issue, so I understand. But I'd probably have to gather a forest of references and links to give you a sense that this isn't something I'm just making up in my head, and I don't think you want me to do that.
I would much prefer you do that than that you continue to offer what appear to me to be complete unsubstantiated speculation about the inner life and fundamental integrity of other people. It may be that you are right, and I will have to offer a retraction (won't be my first) as well as deal with my utter disappointment in my colleagues. Or it may be that what you think are references to support your position are things like the link above-- which demonstrate the exact opposite of what you seem to think it shows.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's positive to hear that there are very many clergy who are utterly open about their 'struggles, challenges, temptations and doubts.'
Maybe I need to attend different churches and stop hanging out with the kind of ministers who mostly mention these problems in private!
Yes, I would certainly suggest you get a broader sampling before speculating about the inner life and integrity of other people.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I do believe that if the clergy were better able to share their most challenging theological insights with congregations there would be less of a gap. Perhaps this requires better training in communication skills, or a different approach towards human relationships in church.
Possibly. Although our experience on the Ship should demonstrate that simply sharing your theological insights is no guarantee that others will adopt them.
I do believe that good communication, sensitivity, good conflict management skills are key to handling controversial matters and/or difficult theological concepts without causing any harm either to individuals' faith or to the overall congregational health. But all of that is secondary to the issue of integrity. If people cannot first of all trust their clergy then all the good communication skills and conflict management ability will be moot.
[ 13. February 2016, 15:02: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
One at a time again:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What new and uncharted territory? I'm being kind by calling him insane as the alternative to mad is bad. Is lacking in integrity. Which is in fact far more likely. Having gone down a cul-de-sac, down a hole, all he can do is dig deeper, hunker down, justify it and seduce the gullible, rather than admit he was wrong. Bad makes mad.
Martin, I do wish you'd speak less in riddles. I'm interested in your critique of Boyd, but I can't make head-nor-tail of it. In words simple enough for this fool to understand, can you explain to me why you think he is insane?
mr cheesy, YOU are no fool. It takes one to know one, and you're not. Here is a kindly take on Boyd. To me he's a HUGE disappointment, because he comes so close, but the cigar he misses is a Cohiba Siglo VIII. I guess I'll have to read God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict, Gregory A. Boyd, (InterVarsity Press, 1997), but everything I've read and discussed, including here with cliffdweller, about Boyd is that he believes in the demiurge, who for him corrupted the entire universe from some mythic, meaningless perfect state at the moment of creation.
To truly believe that is deliberately chosen ignorant madness. A rational, simple cosmos, in [the] sui generis [mind of] God or NOT, i.e. sui generis of itself, is infinite and eternal. Satan ain't that big.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Your penultimate paragraph makes you a very real, most faithful Christian, not an atheist.
I appreciate your sentiment and know what you're trying to say, but I might look like one in practice but I'm not in my inner self where it actually counts.
As for your previous post I'd almost agree with you, I want to go Spinoza on myself but I'm taking all my time getting my head around what he's saying before I claim to completely accept his claims.
I have no idea how you could have read that penultimate paragraph as Macrina being a real faithful Christian. Shows that people read what they want to read into things.
(as an aside, many of us have been through a similar journey as you have Macrina, and it is an awesome life changing journey to make!)
Neil
The paragraph: "As a baby Atheist I feel a very strong commitment to helping others(i) and my community(ii) because I don't think there's any divine force out there that will do it for me(iii). My prayers won't help(iv) but my donation of time(v) or money(vi) or a shoulder to cry on(vii) will. Asking God to divert a hurricane or help earthquake victims will do nothing(viii) but again charitable donations(ix) and organising events to raise money(x) will, behaving in an ecologically sustainable way(xi) benefits future generations etc. I feel MORE socially responsible and morally committed as an Atheist, not less. And my motivations and mental state are healthier (for me) than they were as a Christian."
(i)-(xi) are what being Christian IS. Not some creedal chant. Not some hellfire terrified gibbering grovel. Some two-a-penny 'belief'.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I guess I'll have to read God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict, Gregory A. Boyd, (InterVarsity Press, 1997)
I'll echo that suggestion. The part of Boyd's thesis that Martin is objecting to really is part & parcel with the overall systematic theology Boyd is proposing, it's the pulling one piece out of context that makes it so implausible to Martin (although the way he gets so worked up about it is a bit perplexing). God at War (unfortunately named-- Boyd is a pacifist-- you gotta read it to make sense of the title, which isn't really helpful) is a thick tome, but well worth it IMHO.
But this is all off-topic and best discussed in another thread.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes they are 95% Anglican. The 'non-conformist' are even worse. I met a wonderful post-Baptist last summer though, as well as meeting the peerless Steve Chalke. Of the, oooooooh, 20+ of the Anglican I've encountered in over 10 years, including the egregious Mark Stibbe, they are ALL whipped party men.
Fair enough. But when you simply say "The clergy very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive," the clear implication is that you're talking about the clergy in general, not just the 20+ members of the clergy you have encountered over the last 10 years. That's the problem I had with what you said—taking a very small sample (and what you said may be true of that sample) and extrapolating it "the clergy" as a whole.
Dang Nick Tamen, graciousness is hard to beat. I have NO trouble extrapolating to the clergy as a whole from that sample, which is bigger than most people's. And that does not include the thousands of Christians I have fellowshipped with over nearly 40 years, including 'pillars' of the church, the close circles around the pastor/vicar.
I saw my former charismatic evangelical Anglican Sunday worship assistant vicar in action last night. And despite the former, the latter was EXCELLENT. Inspiring, courageous, hands on, serving the dangerous poor. I learned at her feet.
I AM extrapolating and interpolating 'down' from the failed Christian leadership of Andrew, Justin and George (and old George and the unspeakably vile Kirill). I hear NONE of their acolytes daring to speak out against their warmongering.
You do?
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The paragraph: "As a baby Atheist I feel a very strong commitment to helping others(i) and my community(ii) because I don't think there's any divine force out there that will do it for me(iii). My prayers won't help(iv) but my donation of time(v) or money(vi) or a shoulder to cry on(vii) will. Asking God to divert a hurricane or help earthquake victims will do nothing(viii) but again charitable donations(ix) and organising events to raise money(x) will, behaving in an ecologically sustainable way(xi) benefits future generations etc. I feel MORE socially responsible and morally committed as an Atheist, not less. And my motivations and mental state are healthier (for me) than they were as a Christian."
(i)-(xi) are what being Christian IS. Not some creedal chant. Not some hellfire terrified gibbering grovel. Some two-a-penny 'belief'. [/QB]
Well if we are defining a christian as someone who follows their conscience and does good things in the world then I am a christian to0, as is our old friend Richard Dawkins, but I thought, and call me crazy here, that it had something to do with belief in God and a lot to do with faith in that Jesus guy?
Neil
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
Well if we are defining a christian as someone who follows their conscience and does good things in the world then I am a christian too, as is our old friend Richard Dawkins, but I thought, and call me crazy here, that it had something to do with belief in God and a lot to do with faith in that Jesus guy?
Matthew 25 v37-45?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Matthew 25 v37-45?
Does that passage mention that these sheeple are Christians? It seems clear from context that they're not believers in Christ, which indeed seems the point of the parable. Kinda like the Good Samaritan.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Matthew 25 v37-45?
Does that passage mention that these sheeple are Christians? It seems clear from context that they're not believers in Christ, which indeed seems the point of the parable. Kinda like the Good Samaritan.
I think that was que sais-je's point as well.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Matthew 25 v37-45?
Does that passage mention that these sheeple are Christians? It seems clear from context that they're not believers in Christ, which indeed seems the point of the parable. Kinda like the Good Samaritan.
I think that was que sais-je's point as well.
Then I completely fail to see que sais-je's point. The question was about the definition of Christian, not whether people can be good people without being Christians.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
fletcher Christian.
You are absolutely valid in your rhetorical reaction to mine. Your testimony of Northern Ireland clergy is true, I know, because you say it, but it is NOT of the majority by a long way. We need to hear more. I'm ONLY aware of the superb Roman Catholic priest, Alec Reid, who gave the last rites to the two SAS troopers, David Howes and Derek Wood.
So more please.
I speak for my up close and personal experience of cultic, Anglican and Baptist clergy of forty years. I speak as an observer of Christian clergy through the window of BBC 24, my main aperture on the world.
In which the bravest believer in the news in a quarter of a century is a Muslim: A Good Man in Rwanda.
I speak, barely hyperbolically, barely in caricature, barely in bitterness, about the appalling global vacuum in Christian leadership from the top down.
There are bright lights in America ... but dim by comparison with Dr. King by orders of magnitude. And they're in ... America.
(God bless Bernie Sanders, he's so good he MUST be an atheist.)
The only high profile exception in Britain, after the bitterly disappointing Justin Welby (of whom I've not been in the presence, unlike mr cheesy, and yes I was moved by the latter's description), then the forgivably unhinged Andrew White, the appalling Mark Stibbe and his apologist is the excommunicated (by the Evangelical Alliance) post-Baptist Steve Chalke, all of whom I have been.
The list of other really, really disappointing leaders includes Joel Edwards, John Sentamu, bishopric upon bishopric (Hull? Uganda).
Homophobic warmongers TO A MAN.
By their silence.
So no mate.
No apology. No climb down. Sorry to disappoint you. And I need all the friends I can get, being my own worst enemy.
I like my vicar, the best of the four I've had by a country mile. I feel strong affection for him and the evangelical Anglican men I fellowship with intimately.
But this is here. And I can be even more un-restive than I can be with them. Which is very.
Oscar Romero ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Those who unconditionally love, love beyond reasonable hate, reasonable despite, reasonable condemnation, reasonable giving up [on], who go the extra mile, who do not reasonably turn away, who defend the weak, who suffer for being kind, who are punished for their good deeds are followers of Christ.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I guess I'll have to read God at War: the Bible and Spiritual Conflict, Gregory A. Boyd, (InterVarsity Press, 1997)
I'll echo that suggestion. The part of Boyd's thesis that Martin is objecting to really is part & parcel with the overall systematic theology Boyd is proposing, it's the pulling one piece out of context that makes it so implausible to Martin (although the way he gets so worked up about it is a bit perplexing). God at War (unfortunately named-- Boyd is a pacifist-- you gotta read it to make sense of the title, which isn't really helpful) is a thick tome, but well worth it IMHO.
But this is all off-topic and best discussed in another thread.
Again cliffdweller, there is no point is there? In my reading it. I've been valid in what I say. And you ask why it exercises me so? I shook my head then. You CANNOT understand. That's OK.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Matthew 25 v37-45?
Does that passage mention that these sheeple are Christians? It seems clear from context that they're not believers in Christ, which indeed seems the point of the parable. Kinda like the Good Samaritan.
I think that was que sais-je's point as well.
Then I completely fail to see que sais-je's point. The question was about the definition of Christian, not whether people can be good people without being Christians.
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom. And Matt. 25 at least seems to be defining that entirely in terms of behavior/actions, even at times in opposition to stated belief.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I speak, barely hyperbolically, barely in caricature, barely in bitterness, about the appalling global vacuum in Christian leadership from the top down.
But... the sort of leadership you're seeking, the sort of leadership I believe God is calling us to-- is not "top down" leadership. It's (to quote a different book by Boyd you might find more appealing) "power under" leadership rather than "power over." That seems to be the sort of leadership fletcher Christian is describing. If you're looking only at the "top down" Christian leadership in the UK or anywhere else (this is incredibly so in the US) you will miss it altogether.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Martin:
quote:
So more please.
No; no more. This is a modern malaise to see value in the lauded and those whose names should be glorified, who appear regularly on the Twitter posts and have their quotes plastered on the Facebook pages. Those who make us feel good about ourselves when we find we think the same way as them while we sit idly in our armchairs full of self righteousness smugness while tapping in vain criticism on an anonymous internet forum. It suits us in an age of fame a reputation, but I believe there are countless in the heavenly hosts whose names are not remembered by us at all in any shape or form, nor should they be, for they did it not for themselves or for the adulation and admiration of others, but for God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom.
But those are not the same thing. We're told there will be tares until the end, and there are sheep in other fold(s).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom.
But those are not the same thing. We're told there will be tares until the end, and there are sheep in other fold(s).
True. But it was that point that was being attempted to be teased out here: What does it mean to be "a Christian"-- i.e. a "little Christ"-- i.e. a follower of Jesus.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom. And Matt. 25 at least seems to be defining that entirely in terms of behavior/actions, even at times in opposition to stated belief.
Thank you, cliffdweller. That was indeed how I understood it.
PS Though I think I've always been an atheist I did 'O' Level Religious Instruction in 1965. In those days it seemed to involve little more than learning most of the synoptic gospels. 50 years later I still remember lots of it. Weird given how much I've forgotten of everything else. I got a Grade 3 by the way.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
If you were drawing from memory re Matt. 25, I would say it has served you well!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom.
But those are not the same thing. We're told there will be tares until the end, and there are sheep in other fold(s).
True. But it was that point that was being attempted to be teased out here: What does it mean to be "a Christian"-- i.e. a "little Christ"-- i.e. a follower of Jesus.
A Christian is a member of the Church. We confuse the Church with the Kingdom. They're not the same thing.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Matt. 25 appears to be about precisely that-- defining who is a Christian-- or, to put it more directly, who is in (or out) of God's Kingdom.
But those are not the same thing. We're told there will be tares until the end, and there are sheep in other fold(s).
True. But it was that point that was being attempted to be teased out here: What does it mean to be "a Christian"-- i.e. a "little Christ"-- i.e. a follower of Jesus.
A Christian is a member of the Church. We confuse the Church with the Kingdom. They're not the same thing.
I would agree they're not the same thing, although I believe they are related. But the definition of "Christian" is what we're debating here. I would say the definition "follower of Christ" and/or "member of God's Kingdom" is every bit as valid as the definition "member of the Church".
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
... As a baby Atheist ...
To me you sound a very grown up one.
Thankyou I don't use the term to mean immature particularly more just new. This time last year I'd have been horrified if someone described me as an Atheist now I see it as more or less accurate.
I also understand and agree with what Starbelly said, both about the journey being life changing and also about the vital difference between belief and action. Again I might 'look' like a Christian in some of my social actions (and very much not like one in others) but that motivation has to be grounded in faith in Christ for it to be authentically Christian and I don't have that.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If you were drawing from memory re Matt. 25, I would say it has served you well!
Thanks, it has (though less good now).
I knew it was in Matthew and looked it up. Probably in Luke as well? I recall I always preferred Luke though I remember it in less detail. Must read them again. Because of the exam syllabus we never did John - or indeed anything else in the NT.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
cliffdweller
fletcher Christian
perfect
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
... but that motivation has to be grounded in faith in Christ for it to be authentically Christian and I don't have that.
This seems to interlock with Matthew 25 (see discussion a bit up the thread) as well. Though the technicalities of that discussion have already lost me!
I wonder how precisely Jesus knew what it would mean for others to be "authentically Christian". Or indeed if he cared that much about the details as long as the hungry ate, the thirsty drank etc.
PS In my first post I used 'grown up' to mean an attitude to life rather than maturity as age. I have the latter but often lack the former!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree they're not the same thing, although I believe they are related. But the definition of "Christian" is what we're debating here. I would say the definition "follower of Christ" and/or "member of God's Kingdom" is every bit as valid as the definition "member of the Church".
But it's really being redefined here, as in Victorian England, as "a truly decent chap who's good to others." Which robs the word of all specific meaning.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree they're not the same thing, although I believe they are related. But the definition of "Christian" is what we're debating here. I would say the definition "follower of Christ" and/or "member of God's Kingdom" is every bit as valid as the definition "member of the Church".
But it's really being redefined here, as in Victorian England, as "a truly decent chap who's good to others." Which robs the word of all specific meaning.
No, it's being defined as a "member of the Kingdom"-- and that is being defined by Matt. 25. Now, I will grant there are other passages of Scripture that could be used to define it otherwise, but in regards to Matt. 25, I think that seems to be an accurate representation of what Jesus seems to be saying there.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I love the way a discussion about what things would be like if it was proved that God doesn't exist has turned into one about who will enter His Kingdom.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I don't think these definitions make any sense.
Are we really going to say that Origen ir Arius cannot be considered to be a Christian because it was later decided that his Christology was unorthodox?
OK I accept they were heretics, but they were Christian heretics (rather than any other kind of heretic), but clearly they had a position and influence in the early church.
Is it so unbelievable that those Christians martyred under the Romans, crucified every mile out of Rome or fed to lions may not have had fully Orthodox views on topics that were not sorted out by the church councils for several hundred years?
Or more recent examples: are we going to suggest that Bunyan and George Fox were not Christians because they were not part of the Established religion? How about Leo Tolstoy, Dosteovsky? Yes, these writers had unorthodox Christian views (in both senses of the word) but are we going to deny that they had anything to do with Christianity?
Were these really saying that these we doing anything much different to the disciples and early followers of Christ - in the sense of developing church and praxy from various principles (they felt were) revealed to them?
ISTM that nobody calling themselves a "Christian atheist" is saying anything that well-placed historical self defined Christian hasn't already said in the early part of the Christian era, and arguably they're saying things that gospel characters themselves argued for.
We can all play this game where we believe that we're the only person with the skills and authority to tell others when they're correctly using the term Christian. Let's not do that - the fact is that people use the term in different ways. We don't have to like or agree with them.
[ 14. February 2016, 08:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it's really being redefined here, as in Victorian England, as "a truly decent chap who's good to others." Which robs the word of all specific meaning.
The (pre-Victorian) Lord Shaftesbury wrote - I paraphrase - "If you say that someone is a good man, you won't be asked if he is a Christian. If you say someone is a Christian you will be asked if he is also a good man" (in "An Inquiry concerning Virtue, or Merit")
To be a "decent chap who's good to others" is more than I can usually manage. I think the rest will always be an irrelevance to me.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think God is the problem really, about Christianity. Well, OK, it is a problem for atheists, or rather an irrelevance. But I think salvation is the problem, or rather the premise for salvation, which is that something is wrong.
OK, I can relate that to stuff like alienation and loneliness, and cruelty. But do I have to be saved from those things? They made me what I am.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I AM extrapolating and interpolating 'down' from the failed Christian leadership of Andrew, Justin and George (and old George and the unspeakably vile Kirill). I hear NONE of their acolytes daring to speak out against their warmongering.
You do?
I don't even know who you're talking about Martin. Andrew? George? Old George? Unless the latter is George Carey, this American Presbyterian is clueless—which leaves me really clueless about who their acolytes are or what they may or may not be saying.
I do know who Justin and Kyrill are, but mainly from the news (particularly regarding the primates and The Episcopal Church) and the Ship. So again, no, I have little direct knowledge of them and no clue what their "acolytes" are up to.
Which illustrates my point. You're speaking, it seems, from your experience of a particular slice of clergy—some of whom you have direct experience with and some of whom (Russian clergy) I'm guessing you don't—and passing judgment on "the clergy" as a whole.
I don't believe I know any CofE clergy. I do, though, know way more Presbyterian clergy than I can count. (Shoot, I may be kin to more than I can count.) and I know or have known quite a few Methodist and Episcopal clergy over the years, with a few Catholic and Lutheran clergy thrown in for good measure. I can't speak to your experience. But I can tell you that my experience with the clergy I have known does not bear out in any way the accusations you have made. That's why I take issue with your generalized denunciation of "the clergy."
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I speak, barely hyperbolically, barely in caricature, barely in bitterness, about the appalling global vacuum in Christian leadership from the top down.
But... the sort of leadership you're seeking, the sort of leadership I believe God is calling us to-- is not "top down" leadership. It's (to quote a different book by Boyd you might find more appealing) "power under" leadership rather than "power over." That seems to be the sort of leadership fletcher Christian is describing. If you're looking only at the "top down" Christian leadership in the UK or anywhere else (this is incredibly so in the US) you will miss it altogether.
Yes.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
Well if we are defining a christian as someone who follows their conscience and does good things in the world then I am a christian to0, as is our old friend Richard Dawkins, but I thought, and call me crazy here, that it had something to do with belief in God and a lot to do with faith in that Jesus guy?
Neil
Ah, but there are different ways of believing in the Jesus guy. If your type of Christianity is believing that we should follow in the path of Jesus and try to live life as he taught, then you are following a strong framework for life. This framework applies whether or not Jesus ultimately was who he (or often others) says he was - as you are following the path of a great teacher. This option would still apply even if the premise of the OP came to pass. It is following the way during this life on earth, regardless of whether there is a heavenly future for the followers.
Following such a way of life, outlined above, is a completely different matter from those who, believing in some kind of supernatural Jesus, would be devastated if he was found not to exist.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Or more recent examples: are we going to suggest that Bunyan and George Fox were not Christians because they were not part of the Established religion? How about Leo Tolstoy, Dosteovsky? Yes, these writers had unorthodox Christian views (in both senses of the word) but are we going to deny that they had anything to do with Christianity?
Who on earth as suggested any such thing? Or at least, who on this thread? This is a straw man of epic proportions.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I AM extrapolating and interpolating 'down' from the failed Christian leadership of Andrew, Justin and George (and old George and the unspeakably vile Kirill). I hear NONE of their acolytes daring to speak out against their warmongering.
You do?
I don't even know who you're talking about Martin. Andrew? George? Old George? Unless the latter is George Carey, this American Presbyterian is clueless—which leaves me really clueless about who their acolytes are or what they may or may not be saying.
I do know who Justin and Kyrill are, but mainly from the news (particularly regarding the primates and The Episcopal Church) and the Ship. So again, no, I have little direct knowledge of them and no clue what their "acolytes" are up to.
Which illustrates my point. You're speaking, it seems, from your experience of a particular slice of clergy—some of whom you have direct experience with and some of whom (Russian clergy) I'm guessing you don't—and passing judgment on "the clergy" as a whole.
I don't believe I know any CofE clergy. I do, though, know way more Presbyterian clergy than I can count. (Shoot, I may be kin to more than I can count.) and I know or have known quite a few Methodist and Episcopal clergy over the years, with a few Catholic and Lutheran clergy thrown in for good measure. I can't speak to your experience. But I can tell you that my experience with the clergy I have known does not bear out in any way the accusations you have made. That's why I take issue with your generalized denunciation of "the clergy."
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I speak, barely hyperbolically, barely in caricature, barely in bitterness, about the appalling global vacuum in Christian leadership from the top down.
But... the sort of leadership you're seeking, the sort of leadership I believe God is calling us to-- is not "top down" leadership. It's (to quote a different book by Boyd you might find more appealing) "power under" leadership rather than "power over." That seems to be the sort of leadership fletcher Christian is describing. If you're looking only at the "top down" Christian leadership in the UK or anywhere else (this is incredibly so in the US) you will miss it altogether.
Yes.
OK Nick, sorry to have been so Anglo-centric. You got George Carey as well as Justin Welby and Kirill - Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev. Most impressive. Andrew (White - the 'Vicar of Baghdad'), Justin (Welby) and George (Bergoglio - AKA Francis), as in Marvin Gaye's Abraham, Martin and John. My little parody. The 'top' guys - George, Kirill, Justin - have acolytes in the looser sense of hierarchical followers with the undertone of mere candle lighters.
They are ALL, to a man, warmongers. ALL of the troops they command are.
I'm very glad to know that none of the Presbyterians, Episcopalians = Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists on your side of the pond, is even a passive warmonger. Pity we can't hear them over here, proclaiming peace and justice for all, speaking out against power, leading the way, laying down their privilege as they obviously are. Or must be.
We DO hear Bernie Sanders and we have Jeremy Corbyn. Neither of whom are Christians, thank God!
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
'm very glad to know that none of the Presbyterians, Episcopalians = Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists on your side of the pond, is even a passive warmonger. Pity we can't hear them over here, proclaiming peace and justice for all, speaking out against power, leading the way, laying down their privilege as they obviously are. Or must be.
Martin, I frankly have no idea whether you'd say that none are even "passive warmongers," since you seem to use "warmonger" much more broadly than I would. (Though I know a number who I think would pass your test pretty easily.) That said, I know relatively few who "very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive," which was your initial charge against the clergy.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Pity we can't hear them over here, proclaiming peace and justice for all, speaking out against power, leading the way, laying down their privilege as they obviously are. Or must be.
We DO hear Bernie Sanders and we have Jeremy Corbyn. Neither of whom are Christians, thank God!
This seems like the corollary of blaming Muslims for not more loudly condemning terrorism when no-one will cover their marches.
Are you seriously sniping away at Nick's pacifist clergy for not having the same public platform as Bernie Sanders? And how would you feel about the church spending its money to give bishops a public platform for their political views?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Delighted if they were the politics of God.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Difficult to determine that. Maybe we should provide a substantial slice of the Church's finding to you for your political views as the next best approximation? After all, the poor we have with us always.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
'm very glad to know that none of the Presbyterians, Episcopalians = Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists on your side of the pond, is even a passive warmonger. Pity we can't hear them over here, proclaiming peace and justice for all, speaking out against power, leading the way, laying down their privilege as they obviously are. Or must be.
Martin, I frankly have no idea whether you'd say that none are even "passive warmongers," since you seem to use "warmonger" much more broadly than I would. (Though I know a number who I think would pass your test pretty easily.) That said, I know relatively few who "very rarely get real, honest, raw, inclusive," which was your initial charge against the clergy.
I know a number of pacifist clergy. Most of course are Mennonite or other denominations that are committed to that lifestyle as an entire community. Others are working to promote pacifism within their own communities. Because of the virtues associated with those who choose pacifism, it's difficult to identify pacifist "leaders"-- but that says more about our *ffed up views of leadership than about the leaders themselves. Some who stand out here in the US are Shane Clairborne, Jim Wallis, and until recently, the late Glen Stassen (a huge loss to us all). Walter Wink and Greg Boyd (who Martin is familiar with) have both written systematic theologies to give a theological foundation for their pacifist pov (as well as to clarify that pacifism ≠ passivity.)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The politics of God are difficult for you?
I don't find them so. Now. Took a while.
Shane, Jim, Walter and Greg - the joker in the pack - I know. And Rob and Brian and Nadia and Tony and Roger and Rachel and Brené and Oprah and ... Over here we only have Steve.
Some times one man's all you need. Look at Chuck Norris.
Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on
:
"My question is, on this Sunday, and the weeks and months and years that follow what would happen to the Church."
No idea and not interested, I`d be out doing whatever I wanted and if you get in my way, to quote Mr.T "I pity the fool!" If this is the only life I will have then I will immediately revert to the animalistic nature I followed for so many years before I was a Christian, end of.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Why?
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
There is no point to a church without God. God is its reason for being.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
No idea and not interested, I`d be out doing whatever I wanted and if you get in my way, to quote Mr.T "I pity the fool!" If this is the only life I will have then I will immediately revert to the animalistic nature I followed for so many years before I was a Christian, end of.
Plenty of atheists/non Christians live a good life dedicated to others, I don't see it as either Christian or animalistic at all!.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I think we've enough of a sample size to conclude being Christian (or Buddhist, Jewish,Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, etc) doesn't make better people in general.
Some use those as tools to better themselves, but if you use them to restrain yourself, you've learned nothing.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
but if you use them to restrain yourself, you've learned nothing.
That sounds very high minded, but I have to admit to having all sorts of base impulses that need restraining. Is it really possible to get rid of them all?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
but if you use them to restrain yourself, you've learned nothing.
That sounds very high minded, but I have to admit to having all sorts of base impulses that need restraining. Is it really possible to get rid of them all?
Of course not. But if the rules are all that is restraining you from behaving like an animal as donlogan states, then you are not absorbing the lessons being taught.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Christianity isn't a rule. Where did talk of rules come into your argument? We were talking about people using religion - which includes lessons, belief, practice, theology... some of which produces rules. I find that package restrains some of my worst instincts.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
If, released from the oversight of a controller, one would abandon one's principles, it is my contention that one does not truly follow them. This is not to say one should be perfect or never need reference guidelines. But to leave them suggests one never truly believed them.
I will admit that I fail my own guidelines constantly. It doesn't mean that I do not try to maintain them. And will do so regardless of any proofs of enlightenment.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
You've dropped "rules" from the argument and now used the word "controller". Why should religion be described as a "controller" and a non-religious sense of ethical duty be called "principles"?
To me religion includes principles - so you might as well say "If you need principles to control your actions then you're doing it wrong."
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You've dropped "rules" from the argument and now used the word "controller". Why should religion be described as a "controller" and a non-religious sense of ethical duty be called "principles"?
To me religion includes principles - so you might as well say "If you need principles to control your actions then you're doing it wrong."
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
If God is out of the picture, how will that change your behaviour?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, one problem here is that if God is real (as we maintain), then it's logically impossible for us (Christians) to answer your question. How would I be different if God were not here, living within me? I am certain that he makes a helluva difference (ouch, pun). But as I have no experience of being myself without God (bar my pre-conversion years long ago, which were hell), how am I going to compare my life-with-God-now to my-postulated-life-with-no-God-out-there?
It's sort of like asking people, who would you be if you weren't you? Or, if you weren't [insert gender, race, age, or any other major defining characteristic] Without even the possibility of experiencing the opposite, how can it be answered?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If God is out of the picture, how will that change your behaviour?
Oh I get it, you think God is the controller and the rule maker. Well no, sorry, my religion doesn't work like that.
I look to Jesus for an example of a way to live, and I think I would find much of it equally instructive even if God was out of the picture. But believing the gospel stories to be literally true gives that extra force in my life and no doubt I would fail even more often than I currently do if I didn't have that encouragement.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If God is out of the picture, how will that change your behaviour?
Oh I get it, you think God is the controller and the rule maker. Well no, sorry, my religion doesn't work like that.
More precisely, I think some of your fellow believers think that.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I look to Jesus for an example of a way to live, and I think I would find much of it equally instructive even if God was out of the picture. But believing the gospel stories to be literally true gives that extra force in my life and no doubt I would fail even more often than I currently do if I didn't have that encouragement.
Fair enough.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Oh I get it, you think God is the controller and the rule maker. Well no, sorry, my religion doesn't work like that.
More precisely, I think some of your fellow believers think that.
If God isn't the controller and rule maker, then what in blazes was all that "Ten Commandments" stuff about?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Controller of what? What rules? Quantum indeterminacy? That kindness is its own reward?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Oh I get it, you think God is the controller and the rule maker. Well no, sorry, my religion doesn't work like that.
More precisely, I think some of your fellow believers think that.
If God isn't the controller and rule maker, then what in blazes was all that "Ten Commandments" stuff about?
All of us make rules, all the time. You can borrow my car, but must fill up the tank when you return it. You can eat in the dining room, but not in the den. You need to wait at a stop sign until it's your turn to proceed. We even make rules for our own selves: "I will only have one small piece of pie, and not until I've finished my dinner".
But the fact that as parents, spouses, employers, communities, or individuals we make rules of varying importance/purpose, is quite different than saying we ARE rule makers as our sole identity. Do parents make rules? Sure. Is the primary function, identity and purpose of a parent to make rules? Hopefully not.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Thanks Cliffdweller. Added to that, the in blazes bit was "I am that I am" - the ten commandments was in cloud.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If God isn't the controller and rule maker, then what in blazes was all that "Ten Commandments" stuff about?
Well, according to Jesus, the Ten Commandments (which in Hebrew are the "ten words" or "ten sayings") were all about loving God and loving neighbor.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of us make rules, all the time.
Very few of us punish those who break them with eternal damnation, though.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If God isn't the controller and rule maker, then what in blazes was all that "Ten Commandments" stuff about?
Well, according to Jesus, the Ten Commandments (which in Hebrew are the "ten words" or "ten sayings") were all about loving God and loving neighbor.
Do we have to obey them or not? Are they Commandments, or just Suggestions?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of us make rules, all the time.
Very few of us punish those who break them with eternal damnation, though.
Of course not. And neither does God.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of us make rules, all the time.
Very few of us punish those who break them with eternal damnation, though.
Of course not. And neither does God.
That is very much not a universal Christian viewpoint.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of us make rules, all the time.
Very few of us punish those who break them with eternal damnation, though.
Of course not. And neither does God.
That is very much not a universal Christian viewpoint.
Really? You know a lot of Christians who believe God sends people to hell for breaking the 10 commandments? As regular shipmates know, I run in some pretty conservative circles, and I don't know any.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You know a lot of Christians who believe God sends people to hell for breaking the 10 commandments?
Yep. Especially people who break the first couple.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You know a lot of Christians who believe God sends people to hell for breaking the 10 commandments?
Yep. Especially people who break the first couple.
hmmm... the more conservative of my evangelical brethren will say "rejecting Christ" will get you that ticket to the nether regions, which could of course be interpreted as breaking the first couple of commandments. But they would vehemently protest framing that as punishment for "breaking rules", but rather as the logical consequences of breaking relationship with God. Again, I don't know anyone who thinks (at least explicitly) your eternal destiny is based on "rule keeping"-- most would say that Christianity is based on our inability to keep the rules, and thus the need for a Savior.
And of course, quite a few of us reject even that paradigm.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You know a lot of Christians who believe God sends people to hell for breaking the 10 commandments?
Yep. Especially people who break the first couple.
Boggles, doesn't it? On this very site we've had people argue that not believing in God condemns one to hell and those are generally part of the argument.
5 of the frickin things are about giving Big Daddy his props.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
As an aside I don't think any of the 10 commandments say "Thou shalt believe in God". I've never heard a Christian argue that anyone getting involved in a graven image is on a ticket to hell. The more usual position is that an unrepentant sinner without the saving blood of the lamb is on a ticket to hell, irrespective of the scale of the sin. But I don't think anyone here is arguing that.
I'm sure we can come up with all sorts of versions of Christianity that look very rule based but since no-one is arguing that here it's not a very fruitful strawman to go for.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
5 of the frickin things are about giving Big Daddy his props.
pedantic point: 4, actually. And even #4 is debatable: I would argue that the Sabbath-rule belongs with the "loving neighbor" piece rather than the "loving God" piece.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If God isn't the controller and rule maker, then what in blazes was all that "Ten Commandments" stuff about?
Well, according to Jesus, the Ten Commandments (which in Hebrew are the "ten words" or "ten sayings") were all about loving God and loving neighbor.
Do we have to obey them or not? Are they Commandments, or just Suggestions?
I wouldn't necessarily say that they are either. Standards? Expectations? Instructions or Teachings (which is what Torah means) about how to be in right relationship to God and neighbor? Ways to walk or way to behave (which is what Halakha, usually translated "the law," literally means in Hebrew)?
I think it's interesting how the names we give things affect how we view those things.
[ 19. February 2016, 17:45: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0