Originally posted by LeRoc:
Theologians are uncomfortable with philosophy?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:So are churches which allow for the reconcilliation between science and religion doing better than the ones that don't?
2) Find reconciliation between religion and science--they are not mutually exclusive but evangelicals in particular shoot themselves in their foot when they insist on a literal understanding of the creation stories, IMHO.
quote:This is a huge one imo - especially for young people. All the young Christians I know who turned agnostic/atheist cited this one. (only ten people, but still)
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Find reconciliation between religion and science--they are not mutually exclusive but evangelicals in particular shoot themselves in their foot when they insist on a literal understanding of the creation stories, IMHO.
quote:There is nothing in my post to suggest that the decline in church going is a rejection of God.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What makes you think church attendance declining means people are rejecting God? Rather than, like me, rejecting the church? And maybe finding God in the process.
quote:This is bizarre - and I'm not doubting your experience, because I too meet lots of young people who cite this - because mainstream churches in the UK are really not very creationist.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This is a huge one imo - especially for young people. All the young Christians I know who turned agnostic/atheist cited this one. (only ten people, but still)
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Find reconciliation between religion and science--they are not mutually exclusive but evangelicals in particular shoot themselves in their foot when they insist on a literal understanding of the creation stories, IMHO.
quote:The OP and thread title suggest this.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:There is nothing in my post to suggest that the decline in church going is a rejection of God.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What makes you think church attendance declining means people are rejecting God? Rather than, like me, rejecting the church? And maybe finding God in the process.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:The OP and thread title suggest this.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:There is nothing in my post to suggest that the decline in church going is a rejection of God.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What makes you think church attendance declining means people are rejecting God? Rather than, like me, rejecting the church? And maybe finding God in the process.
If you want to argue that point, why should anyone be interested encouraging people back into an institution that they reject? What is the point of the church? It is helpful for some, yes, but why bother about reducing attendance? If less people find it useful, so be it.
quote:I think you have a desire to be gratuitously offensive.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
1. Don't be a dick
2. Be a normal person and be prepared to engage with others about faith - theirs (or lack of it) and yours.
3. Listen to people when they tell you why Christianity and the church sucks. Don't respond with "No all churches".
quote:I can't speak for the UK, in the US it's really that fundamentalism has dominated the airwaves. I find even among my religiously diverse students, the only version of Christianity they're even aware exists is con-evo fundamentalism. They aren't even aware there is a more moderate form of evangelicalism that would favor women's rights, theistic evolution, and possibly even gay marriage or universalism. Much less any awareness of non-evangelical Christianity. So yeah, they really honestly don't know there is an alternative. Some of that's on journalism in general, where print media has savaged budgets for the "religion beat" and broadcast media just wants to get the most extreme, oddball whackadoodle Christians they can in front of the camera. But some of it's on us for failing to enunciate the alternatives in a meaningful way.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:This is bizarre - and I'm not doubting your experience, because I too meet lots of young people who cite this - because mainstream churches in the UK are really not very creationist.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This is a huge one imo - especially for young people. All the young Christians I know who turned agnostic/atheist cited this one. (only ten people, but still)
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Find reconciliation between religion and science--they are not mutually exclusive but evangelicals in particular shoot themselves in their foot when they insist on a literal understanding of the creation stories, IMHO.
I believe you are in quite a conservative congregation so that might make a difference.
However even people who have not been in a creationist milieu still say that this is why they no longer believe.
I wonder if it a post hoc justification in at least some fraction of cases.
quote:Well SC's failing to offend me if that's their desire.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:I think you have a desire to be gratuitously offensive.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
1. Don't be a dick
2. Be a normal person and be prepared to engage with others about faith - theirs (or lack of it) and yours.
3. Listen to people when they tell you why Christianity and the church sucks. Don't respond with "No all churches".
I hope it keeps you amused.
quote:If you and SC wish to reduce this to a slagging match, so be.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Well SC's failing to offend me if that's their desire.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:I think you have a desire to be gratuitously offensive.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
1. Don't be a dick
2. Be a normal person and be prepared to engage with others about faith - theirs (or lack of it) and yours.
3. Listen to people when they tell you why Christianity and the church sucks. Don't respond with "No all churches".
I hope it keeps you amused.
1 is ... 1
2 I'd only want to engage about faith if my works were up to it.
3 I respond with complete agreement, "me too" and ask them why they feel and think that.
quote:So it would seem.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm sorry? Are we separated by a common language?
quote:Who wants a church where people attend for reasons other than their core commitment to the faith? Not me.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
At one time, particularly in small communities, people went to church, not necessarily because they were religious or that they believed in God, but because it was required of them. It was part of the social scene to which they belonged, or wished to belong.
quote:I do. I want it full of people who are intrigued by the figure of Jesus but don't know what to make of him. I want it full of people who don't know what they believe but are attracted by the concepts encapsulated in Jesus' earthly life. I want it full of people who don't know what they believe but think there's something of value there. I'm not really bothered about their commitment to any set of propositions.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Who wants a church where people attend for reasons other than their core commitment to the faith?
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
At one time, particularly in small communities, people went to church, not necessarily because they were religious or that they believed in God, but because it was required of them. It was part of the social scene to which they belonged, or wished to belong.
quote:Then why not just start a discussion group about the life and teachings of Jesus? Why do your "curious about Jesus" people need to meet in a place onstensibly decidated to worshipping the guy?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I do. I want it full of people who are intrigued by the figure of Jesus but don't know what to make of him. I want it full of people who don't know what they believe but are attracted by the concepts encapsulated in Jesus' earthly life. I want it full of people who don't know what they believe but think there's something of value there. I'm not really bothered about their commitment to any set of propositions.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Who wants a church where people attend for reasons other than their core commitment to the faith?
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
At one time, particularly in small communities, people went to church, not necessarily because they were religious or that they believed in God, but because it was required of them. It was part of the social scene to which they belonged, or wished to belong.
quote:I can only observe my own child, who has not been brought up Creationist nor in any kind of non-mainstream church.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:This is bizarre - and I'm not doubting your experience, because I too meet lots of young people who cite this - because mainstream churches in the UK are really not very creationist.
Originally posted by Boogie:
This is a huge one imo - especially for young people. All the young Christians I know who turned agnostic/atheist cited this one. (only ten people, but still)
I believe you are in quite a conservative congregation so that might make a difference.
However even people who have not been in a creationist milieu still say that this is why they no longer believe.
I wonder if it a post hoc justification in at least some fraction of cases.
quote:Why not? These people aren't necessarily interested in discussing concepts about Jesus. They are interested in belonging, even though they're not sure about what it is they are belonging to.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Then why not just start a discussion group about the life and teachings of Jesus? Why do your "curious about Jesus" people need to meet in a place onstensibly decidated to worshipping the guy?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I do. I want it full of people who are intrigued by the figure of Jesus but don't know what to make of him. I want it full of people who don't know what they believe but are attracted by the concepts encapsulated in Jesus' earthly life. I want it full of people who don't know what they believe but think there's something of value there. I'm not really bothered about their commitment to any set of propositions.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Who wants a church where people attend for reasons other than their core commitment to the faith?
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
At one time, particularly in small communities, people went to church, not necessarily because they were religious or that they believed in God, but because it was required of them. It was part of the social scene to which they belonged, or wished to belong.
quote:If you put things in the proper context or framework, you may be able to get answers.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
With church attendance in serious decline, what can we do to address this issue?
quote:and
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
I think you have a desire to be gratuitously offensive.
I hope it keeps you amused.
quote:That's getting too personal for Purgatory - if you want to engage with someone's arguments, do it here, if you want to comment on how offensive and immature you consider them to be, take it to Hell.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
I was mistaken in thinking that this was a board for mature discussion. I know better now.
quote:But the thread is called Bringing people back to God, which does rather imply that as you go on to discuss church attendance, you believe that abandoning church is abandoning God.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:There is nothing in my post to suggest that the decline in church going is a rejection of God.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
What makes you think church attendance declining means people are rejecting God? Rather than, like me, rejecting the church? And maybe finding God in the process.
quote:Actually, it seems quite similar to what I hear on Sunday mornings. Perhaps you could point out how your sermon differs from the average "impoverished pap" one hears in other churches?
Originally posted by footwasher:
See, that's a rich and robust unpacking of the material. Not like the impoverished pap we hear on any given Sunday morning.
quote:I love having a church with people who are truly seeking-- people who are curious about Jesus, or about what faith looks like. People with real and honest questions.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Then why not just start a discussion group about the life and teachings of Jesus? Why do your "curious about Jesus" people need to meet in a place onstensibly decidated to worshipping the guy?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I do. I want it full of people who are intrigued by the figure of Jesus but don't know what to make of him. I want it full of people who don't know what they believe but are attracted by the concepts encapsulated in Jesus' earthly life. I want it full of people who don't know what they believe but think there's something of value there. I'm not really bothered about their commitment to any set of propositions.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:Who wants a church where people attend for reasons other than their core commitment to the faith?
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
At one time, particularly in small communities, people went to church, not necessarily because they were religious or that they believed in God, but because it was required of them. It was part of the social scene to which they belonged, or wished to belong.
quote:I think I'd prefer impoverished pap that I could make any sense of it that what Footwasher posted, which I couldn't.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, it seems quite similar to what I hear on Sunday mornings. Perhaps you could point out how your sermon differs from the average "impoverished pap" one hears in other churches?
Originally posted by footwasher:
See, that's a rich and robust unpacking of the material. Not like the impoverished pap we hear on any given Sunday morning.
quote:Would you consider a Christianity that relies primarily on figurative interpretation rather than literal narration of long-ago events, in order to convey timeless spiritual truths through metaphorical meaning rather than propositions of historical fact, unrecognizable?
Originally posted by Stetson:
re: science and religion. Imagine the following debate between a skeptic and a clergyman...
SK: I don't wanna go to church. You guys are against science.
CL: Not at all. You're thinking of the fundies. Our church accepts evolution and the big bang theory.
SK: Hey, that's cool. But what about the Virgin Birth?
CL: Oh, uhh, well, some of us think that's just a holdover from paganism.
SK: Okay. And the miracles of Jesus?
CL: Uhh, metaphorical?
SK: Right. And the Resurrection?
CL: ....
You can all write your own reply for that last one. Bouns points if it still manages to reconcile science with any recognizable version of Christianity.
quote:Which is more compelling?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, it seems quite similar to what I hear on Sunday mornings. Perhaps you could point out how your sermon differs from the average "impoverished pap" one hears in other churches?
Originally posted by footwasher:
See, that's a rich and robust unpacking of the material. Not like the impoverished pap we hear on any given Sunday morning.
quote:With God everything is possible...
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I think I'd prefer impoverished pap that I could make any sense of it that what Footwasher posted, which I couldn't.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, it seems quite similar to what I hear on Sunday mornings. Perhaps you could point out how your sermon differs from the average "impoverished pap" one hears in other churches?
Originally posted by footwasher:
See, that's a rich and robust unpacking of the material. Not like the impoverished pap we hear on any given Sunday morning.
Perhaps I'm just thick as shit.
quote:Certainly the latter. Which is what I hear most Sundays-- but then these days I eschew the Calvinist denoms you seem to be more familiar with.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Which is more compelling?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, it seems quite similar to what I hear on Sunday mornings. Perhaps you could point out how your sermon differs from the average "impoverished pap" one hears in other churches?
Originally posted by footwasher:
See, that's a rich and robust unpacking of the material. Not like the impoverished pap we hear on any given Sunday morning.
To be told that the desired result is to escape eternal torment in hell (that's not even congruent with the image of a loving God, therefore leading to skepticism about the veracity of the message)
Or
To be told that you are escaping a futile way of living (something that is immediately obvious)?
quote:Give me a link to an article or talk where the person tells the audience that all their work is going to amount to nothing, all the relationships they have built up is going the same way, all the efforts to create a good image or reputation, ditto.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Certainly the latter. Which is what I hear most Sundays-- but then these days I eschew the Calvinist denoms you seem to be more familiar with.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Which is more compelling?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, it seems quite similar to what I hear on Sunday mornings. Perhaps you could point out how your sermon differs from the average "impoverished pap" one hears in other churches?
Originally posted by footwasher:
See, that's a rich and robust unpacking of the material. Not like the impoverished pap we hear on any given Sunday morning.
To be told that the desired result is to escape eternal torment in hell (that's not even congruent with the image of a loving God, therefore leading to skepticism about the veracity of the message)
Or
To be told that you are escaping a futile way of living (something that is immediately obvious)?
It's a good (biblical even) but not a new thought-- this is a common thread in NT Wright and a variety of other theologians and preachers, from both evangelical and mainline denoms. (Tony Campolo uses almost identical wording in fact: "saved from a fruitless way of life", whereas Wright favors "God's big rescue plan").
But that fact that you perceive this as a unique or distinctive pov goes exactly to the point I was making earlier-- that despite the fact that there are a large number of churches & preachers and theologians articulating precisely this pov, the airwaves have become so dominated by narrow fundamentalism (and in particular, Calvinist fundamentalism) that many, many people-- both Christians and non-Christians-- are simply not aware that there is anything else out there.
quote:Shoot, it's what I hear most Sundays in the (historically, at least, and in many ways still) Calvinist, mainline denomination to which I belong.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Certainly the latter. Which is what I hear most Sundays-- but then these days I eschew the Calvinist denoms you seem to be more familiar with.
Originally posted by footwasher:
Which is more compelling?
To be told that the desired result is to escape eternal torment in hell (that's not even congruent with the image of a loving God, therefore leading to skepticism about the veracity of the message)
Or
To be told that you are escaping a futile way of living (something that is immediately obvious)?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:You are moving the goal posts just a bit-- and in a typically Calvinist/total depravity sort of way. There is a difference between saying that our lives without Christ, our lives outside the Kingdom, are futile (Col. 1:13) and saying that everything we do and all our relationships are worthless. This sort of overreach is one (although not the most significant) of the problems I have with the hyper-Calvinist Dortian paradigm. And, to the OP, I think is one of the thing that detracts people from God-- since they can observe all sorts of nonbelievers out there in the real world doing good things and having good, positive relationships (as well as Christians doing not-so-good things and having destructive, broken relationships).
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Give me a link to an article or talk where the person tells the audience that all their work is going to amount to nothing, all the relationships they have built up is going the same way, all the efforts to create a good image or reputation, ditto.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Certainly the latter. Which is what I hear most Sundays-- but then these days I eschew the Calvinist denoms you seem to be more familiar with.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Which is more compelling?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, it seems quite similar to what I hear on Sunday mornings. Perhaps you could point out how your sermon differs from the average "impoverished pap" one hears in other churches?
Originally posted by footwasher:
See, that's a rich and robust unpacking of the material. Not like the impoverished pap we hear on any given Sunday morning.
To be told that the desired result is to escape eternal torment in hell (that's not even congruent with the image of a loving God, therefore leading to skepticism about the veracity of the message)
Or
To be told that you are escaping a futile way of living (something that is immediately obvious)?
It's a good (biblical even) but not a new thought-- this is a common thread in NT Wright and a variety of other theologians and preachers, from both evangelical and mainline denoms. (Tony Campolo uses almost identical wording in fact: "saved from a fruitless way of life", whereas Wright favors "God's big rescue plan").
But that fact that you perceive this as a unique or distinctive pov goes exactly to the point I was making earlier-- that despite the fact that there are a large number of churches & preachers and theologians articulating precisely this pov, the airwaves have become so dominated by narrow fundamentalism (and in particular, Calvinist fundamentalism) that many, many people-- both Christians and non-Christians-- are simply not aware that there is anything else out there.
If you say that this is common, then you should be seeing people throwing themselves on swords or off cliffs.
quote:I think footwasher and I have different answers to that question.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, why is my life (without Christ) futile? I don't get that.
quote:Christianity is a worldview, a (gasp!) philosophy. I had earlier linked to an article that explained why theologians are uncomfortable with philosophy: they don't think it's relevant. Strange, because both deal with the same issues.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, why is my life (without Christ) futile? I don't get that.
quote:Nothing in the Wright article about what Camus called the absurdity that is life. The Campolo link is dead.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:You are moving the goal posts just a bit-- and in a typically Calvinist/total depravity sort of way. There is a difference between saying that our lives without Christ, our lives outside the Kingdom, are futile (Col. 1:13) and saying that everything we do and all our relationships are worthless. This sort of overreach is one (although not the most significant) of the problems I have with the hyper-Calvinist Dortian paradigm. And, to the OP, I think is one of the thing that detracts people from God-- since they can observe all sorts of nonbelievers out there in the real world doing good things and having good, positive relationships (as well as Christians doing not-so-good things and having destructive, broken relationships).
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Give me a link to an article or talk where the person tells the audience that all their work is going to amount to nothing, all the relationships they have built up is going the same way, all the efforts to create a good image or reputation, ditto.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Certainly the latter. Which is what I hear most Sundays-- but then these days I eschew the Calvinist denoms you seem to be more familiar with.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Which is more compelling?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, it seems quite similar to what I hear on Sunday mornings. Perhaps you could point out how your sermon differs from the average "impoverished pap" one hears in other churches?
Originally posted by footwasher:
See, that's a rich and robust unpacking of the material. Not like the impoverished pap we hear on any given Sunday morning.
To be told that the desired result is to escape eternal torment in hell (that's not even congruent with the image of a loving God, therefore leading to skepticism about the veracity of the message)
Or
To be told that you are escaping a futile way of living (something that is immediately obvious)?
It's a good (biblical even) but not a new thought-- this is a common thread in NT Wright and a variety of other theologians and preachers, from both evangelical and mainline denoms. (Tony Campolo uses almost identical wording in fact: "saved from a fruitless way of life", whereas Wright favors "God's big rescue plan").
But that fact that you perceive this as a unique or distinctive pov goes exactly to the point I was making earlier-- that despite the fact that there are a large number of churches & preachers and theologians articulating precisely this pov, the airwaves have become so dominated by narrow fundamentalism (and in particular, Calvinist fundamentalism) that many, many people-- both Christians and non-Christians-- are simply not aware that there is anything else out there.
If you say that this is common, then you should be seeing people throwing themselves on swords or off cliffs.
But to your earlier summary of the gospel as "rescued from a futile way of life", again, the two authors/theologians I mentioned earlier both use near identical language in these books, while still avoiding the overreach you seem to want to impress now:
Wright (vs. Piper) on salvation/ justification
Brian McLaren/ Tony Campolo: "rescued from a fruitless way of life"
quote:Quote
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Theologians are uncomfortable with philosophy?
quote:Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
quote:None. Christianity very prominently included in that.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
quote:Now you are reversing the burden of proof - an old trick. You are supposed to be demonstrating the futility of life without Christ. How does it go?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
quote:I think my new sig is quite significant.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Well there are exceptions.
Galaxy Song Monthy Python.
quote:You can stop me at any stage, but it's going to take a few posts to flesh it out. Fine?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Now you are reversing the burden of proof - an old trick. You are supposed to be demonstrating the futility of life without Christ. How does it go?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
quote:Well, again, you've shifted things a bit by framing it in existentialist terms as a response to nihilism (may I suggest Ecc. 2 then as a source?). It should not surprise anyone that Wright sees life a bit differently than Camus. But the interview with Wright very much does focus on his understanding of salvation as being "rescued" from a meaningless life (Col. 1:13). I'm not sure what you're missing there.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Nothing in the Wright article about what Camus called the absurdity that is life. The Campolo link is dead.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Brian McLaren/ Tony Campolo: "rescued from a fruitless way of life"
quote:Not really. If you can't summarize it, then it's not credible for me.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:You can stop me at any stage, but it's going to take a few posts to flesh it out. Fine?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Now you are reversing the burden of proof - an old trick. You are supposed to be demonstrating the futility of life without Christ. How does it go?
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Not really. If you can't summarize it, then it's not credible for me. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by jacobsen:
[/QB][/QUOTE]quote:Um. Deliver your thesis in one overwhelmingly convincing sentence?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Not really. If you can't summarize it, then it's not credible for me.
Originally posted by jacobsen:
[/QUOTE]quote:Well, I guess it depends how you define "Christianity". I tend to go with a definition that includes, as a sine qua non, at least some of the supernatural claims about Jesus, specifically that he was either God incarnate, or at least someone divinely ordained in one way or another.
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:Would you consider a Christianity that relies primarily on figurative interpretation rather than literal narration of long-ago events, in order to convey timeless spiritual truths through metaphorical meaning rather than propositions of historical fact, unrecognizable?
Originally posted by Stetson:
re: science and religion. Imagine the following debate between a skeptic and a clergyman...
SK: I don't wanna go to church. You guys are against science.
CL: Not at all. You're thinking of the fundies. Our church accepts evolution and the big bang theory.
SK: Hey, that's cool. But what about the Virgin Birth?
CL: Oh, uhh, well, some of us think that's just a holdover from paganism.
SK: Okay. And the miracles of Jesus?
CL: Uhh, metaphorical?
SK: Right. And the Resurrection?
CL: ....
You can all write your own reply for that last one. Bouns points if it still manages to reconcile science with any recognizable version of Christianity.
quote:Christians believe that Christ is (or at least personifies) the Logos, the essential source and unifying order of all that exists. In that sense nothing is without Christ: for "all things were made by [or through] him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, why is my life (without Christ) futile? I don't get that.
quote:I suppose we disagree about that. I think there is room within the big tent of "Christianity" for natural, scientific truth. I do not believe they must necessarily be contradictory, even if some of the more fantastical stories in the Bible must necessarily be understood as metaphors or teaching tales rather than objective facts in order for them not to be contradictory. For example, it would have been a physical impossibility for the sun and moon to literally stand still in the sky when observed from the earth as described in Joshua 10, but it is far more sensible to understand that incident as a literary device than as a refutation of either the laws of physics or the Christian theological system.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Well, I guess it depends how you define "Christianity". I tend to go with a definition that includes, as a sine qua non, at least some of the supernatural claims about Jesus, specifically that he was either God incarnate, or at least someone divinely ordained in one way or another.
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:Would you consider a Christianity that relies primarily on figurative interpretation rather than literal narration of long-ago events, in order to convey timeless spiritual truths through metaphorical meaning rather than propositions of historical fact, unrecognizable?
Originally posted by Stetson:
re: science and religion. Imagine the following debate between a skeptic and a clergyman...
SK: I don't wanna go to church. You guys are against science.
CL: Not at all. You're thinking of the fundies. Our church accepts evolution and the big bang theory.
SK: Hey, that's cool. But what about the Virgin Birth?
CL: Oh, uhh, well, some of us think that's just a holdover from paganism.
SK: Okay. And the miracles of Jesus?
CL: Uhh, metaphorical?
SK: Right. And the Resurrection?
CL: ....
You can all write your own reply for that last one. Bouns points if it still manages to reconcile science with any recognizable version of Christianity.
I don't know what the noun is for describing people who worshipped the Greek gods as supposedly real beings. But, whatever it is, I would not personally apply it to contemporary folks who find moral inspiration in Greek myths, while disbelieving the reality of the stories.
quote:You gave two links, which I just managed to read.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You really think that's significantly different from what every other church is teaching, such that it will reverse a 30-some year decline in church attendance?
I'm not seeing it.
quote:Verse 31, Arian/Socinian christology! Eat dirt, Nicholas and Athanasius! ;-)
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:You gave two links, which I just managed to read.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You really think that's significantly different from what every other church is teaching, such that it will reverse a 30-some year decline in church attendance?
I'm not seeing it.
Wright doesn't talk about futile living, Campolo writes one line on it. I believe the matter is urgent, I believe people should know they are doing things by rote, thoughtless habit, doing things to live a trouble free life and the more time they waste on this mechanistic way of living, the less time they have to acquire and live the life God meant them to live. Paul of course adds that they are also in danger of being found non compliant:
Acts 17:29"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Verse 29, futile act, serving self.
Verse 30, required act, serving God.
Verse 31, penalizing of the non compliant.
That is not the message we hear in the mainstream churches.
quote:Not sure about this. I think a lot of people believe that the church thinks them sick. The problem is convincing people that the church has any more answers than anyone else. Your list touches on some of the reasons why this is not very obvious.
Originally posted by mstevens:
There's a popular metaphor about the church offering medicine for the sick - these days I think the first thing you need to do is convince people they actually are sick.
quote:Maybe not your mainstream church. But as I and others here have indicated, it is certainly not a new concept or one that is absent from other churches, both mainline and evangelical.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:That is not the message we hear in the mainstream churches.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You really think that's significantly different from what every other church is teaching, such that it will reverse a 30-some year decline in church attendance?
I'm not seeing it.
quote:Which if what they really meant by "worship" was, in fact,worship as portrayed in the Psalms-- i.e. filled with lamentations, accusations, doubt, questions, fist shaking, heart-rending sorrow and anger mixed in with the thanksgiving and praise-- well, then, there could possibly be something there of interest to Martin and possibly even to the Yazidi girl. But if all it is is just cherry-picking the happy-clappy parts-- the praise and adoration-- and leaving the lamentations and questions and heartache unnoticed in the dust-- then yeah, what Martin said.
Originally posted by Martin60:
There was some poor Yazidi girl on the BBC Radio 4 Today Program yesterday morning who'd been gang raped as an IS spoil of war after the 700 men of her village were murdered. I yelled and sobbed at God. He heard. But no fire fell.
I screwed up at work on Sunday and I'm waiting for the hammer to fall and praying for miracles and despising myself out loud for it before God at the same time as I do.
Virtually ALL I see of churches, literally, quantifiably 99%, is 'worship'.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:You know, if you want to get people back or even get them in the first place you could try to avoid talking about them and treating them as if they are stupid.
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:You gave two links, which I just managed to read.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You really think that's significantly different from what every other church is teaching, such that it will reverse a 30-some year decline in church attendance?
I'm not seeing it.
Wright doesn't talk about futile living, Campolo writes one line on it. I believe the matter is urgent, I believe people should know they are doing things by rote, thoughtless habit, doing things to live a trouble free life and the more time they waste on this mechanistic way of living, the less time they have to acquire and live the life God meant them to live. Paul of course adds that they are also in danger of being found non compliant:
Acts 17:29"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Verse 29, futile act, serving self.
Verse 30, required act, serving God.
Verse 31, penalizing of the non compliant.
That is not the message we hear in the mainstream churches.
quote:Bringing people into the church is not the same as bringing them to God.
Originally posted by footwasher:
Paul of course adds that they are also in danger of being found non compliant:
Acts 17:29"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Verse 29, futile act, serving self.
Verse 30, required act, serving God.
Verse 31, penalizing of the non compliant.
That is not the message we hear in the mainstream churches.
quote:The dominant message from the church is that Christianity saves from hell.
Originally posted by mstevens:
As a long-time atheist lurker my personal answers are:
- You have terrible PR - people don't actually know what it is they're turning down, the church assume it's obvious. Even assuming some interest, trying to engage with the church from the outside is intimidating and will lead you to scary places like the Alpha Course.
- There's a huge spiritual claim about God existing that seems to either get handwaved as obvious, or the implication is that we should believe because it's socially convenient.
- What little PR the church gets seems to be about hating various groups.
- This is a little fuzzy, but eg the CoE acts as the default whereas to most people it's a novelty.
There's a popular metaphor about the church offering medicine for the sick - these days I think the first thing you need to do is convince people they actually are sick.
I've noticed one group of online friends get increasingly interested in christianity as a result of being interested in morals and philosophy...
(personally I'm actually thinking about trying a dose of church, but arrangements are still in progress (the relevant friend is busy for a few weeks...))
quote:This is one of my big problems with so much of the church today. In putting so much effort into supporting the institution, there is so little in looking forward to a post-institution world and making that a better place.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Bringing people back to God or back to Church are two different things.
Where I live and work, a rural area, it's becoming more and more apparent that the game's up for the Church and the culture which used to surround it. The Church hierarchy might as well accept this and plan accordingly as opposed to fantasising about a return of the 19th Century.
God will draw people if people are willingly to be drawn and that can happen in the middle of a field or a storm.
quote:Sorry for the double post; and while I am apologising, I didn't intend my previous post to sound so bitchy. I should have couched my suggestions in positive, rather than negative, language.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:This is one of my big problems with so much of the church today. In putting so much effort into supporting the institution, there is so little in looking forward to a post-institution world and making that a better place.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Bringing people back to God or back to Church are two different things.
Where I live and work, a rural area, it's becoming more and more apparent that the game's up for the Church and the culture which used to surround it. The Church hierarchy might as well accept this and plan accordingly as opposed to fantasising about a return of the 19th Century.
God will draw people if people are willingly to be drawn and that can happen in the middle of a field or a storm.
In truth, a church group who were to focus on post-institution faith support would probably find that they grew, both numerically and in terms of change and moving on.
The church is not dying. Only the institution is dying.
quote:I think I sort of agree and sort of disagree? I'm not sure I can explain this clearly. When the church works (for me!) it hits a sense of morals people (I) already have - picking something a bit drastic, maybe you're a kleptomaniac and a bit worried about your tendancy to steal stuff, the church pitch is "it's a real problem, and we have the solution".
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:Not sure about this. I think a lot of people believe that the church thinks them sick. The problem is convincing people that the church has any more answers than anyone else. Your list touches on some of the reasons why this is not very obvious.
Originally posted by mstevens:
There's a popular metaphor about the church offering medicine for the sick - these days I think the first thing you need to do is convince people they actually are sick.
What I find interesting is that, having left church, it is far easier to see from the outside how it appears, in a way that I couldn't while a part of it. The impression from the outside is generally not good.
quote:I've been totally turned off by the Alpha Course for years, and I know at least one other person its had the same effect on. I got the impression christianity is about the worst kind of emotional manipulation.
Originally posted by Komensky:
There are some lovely things written here—and some good ideas for solutions. Here are a few thoughts on what drove me from the church and ultimately from belief in God.
If you want to know what drives many from the church, just read or listen to the first Alpha talk, or read one the Alpha tracts (the worst/best is Challenging Lifestyle). Here you will see that this particular church is completely happy with carrying out a con job on the audience, fabricating testimonies, misattributing quotes and using tried-and-tested hard-sell manipulation techniques taken straight of out the advertising industry. If you want to invite people to join, here are a few tips:
1. Don't lie to them (a sincere admission of ignorance is much, much better than a 'heartfelt' fabrication—even if it 'brings someone to Jesus')
2. If there is no proof or evidence for something say: 'I/we don't know' [that's fine, by the way, there world is full of things we don't fully understand.]
3. Don't share apocryphal testimony stories
4. Don't embarrass people
5. Don't judge other people for who they are—especially homosexuals. You must realise by now that being gay is not a sign that something is wrong with someone.
6. Don't bully people
7. Don't create a false sense of engagement with the 'real world' ('We've invited a Christian mathematician to talk to us about the fact that science and God are reconcilable').
8. Admit that you might not have it right—and that that's OK
9. Don't use expressions like 'the secular world'. There is only 'the world'
10. Do try, if at all possible, not to be an arsehole
This discussion board is closest thing I have to church. If you all met in my local, I'd come along to see you for a chat.
K.
It's a generalization, but mainline, ecumenical, moderate-to-liberal Christians don't strike me as terribly media-savvy.
quote:This. Throughout this thread, I've been thinking a lot about Jesus' counter-intuitive, "upside down" sayings, and particularly "the only way to gain your life is to lose it." Perhaps that applies not only to individuals, but to churches as well.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This is one of my big problems with so much of the church today. In putting so much effort into supporting the institution, there is so little in looking forward to a post-institution world and making that a better place.
In truth, a church group who were to focus on post-institution faith support would probably find that they grew, both numerically and in terms of change and moving on.
The church is not dying. Only the institution is dying.
quote:I am sort of with you here. But I think the church saying "it's a real problem, and we have the solution" is challenging. I have depression - the church does not have a "solution" for that. What the church should be saying, IMO, is "That is a real problem, and we think we can offer help and support".
Originally posted by mstevens:
quote:I think I sort of agree and sort of disagree? I'm not sure I can explain this clearly. When the church works (for me!) it hits a sense of morals people (I) already have - picking something a bit drastic, maybe you're a kleptomaniac and a bit worried about your tendancy to steal stuff, the church pitch is "it's a real problem, and we have the solution".
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:Not sure about this. I think a lot of people believe that the church thinks them sick. The problem is convincing people that the church has any more answers than anyone else. Your list touches on some of the reasons why this is not very obvious.
Originally posted by mstevens:
There's a popular metaphor about the church offering medicine for the sick - these days I think the first thing you need to do is convince people they actually are sick.
What I find interesting is that, having left church, it is far easier to see from the outside how it appears, in a way that I couldn't while a part of it. The impression from the outside is generally not good.
Whereas what people actually get most is "gays are sick", when to most people they look perfectly healthy, AND most people who make that kind of claim have turned out to be pretty unpleasant - it taints any claim from the church to know anything.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Well to be fair, I have two such stories, not 200 or even 20. And I don't know that Matthew Barnett (the first story) didn't get a whole lotta doors slammed in his face (these parts they're apt to think you're a Mormon or Jehovah Witness coming to proselyte).
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Here is a question for you, though, Cliffdweller ..
How come we hear such stories from the US but never here in the UK?
Anyone knocking on doors and asking how he might serve people over here would either be told whete to get off or else still be knocking doors in 50 years time with little but worn boot leather to show for it.
It could be - for now - that we still have the NHS and other social services serving people on the way this bloke was ...
quote:In the case of the LA church I mentioned, the early acts of service that result from the pastor and later a few elders knocking on doors were very simple things-- a bag of groceries, ride to the doctor's office, that sort of thing. The weekly teams that still go out to local neighborhoods do similar sorts of things.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... I understood the point you were making, Cliffdweller ... but whether these stories are one-offs or representative of broader trends they just sound completely alien from the perspective of UK religion - and yes we have Mormons and JWs knocking doors too.
The aspect I was wondering about was what form did the service to the community take?
Sure, there are gaps and the NHS, NGOs and so on don't cover all the bases - and I can see churches and other faith groups attempting to fill those gaps ...
But what form did this service take? What did it consist of?
What would be the equivalent on a rural area, say, rather than downtown LA?
How could a group in a different socio-economic and cultural setting to downtown LA arrange a 'good death' for instance?
quote:I've had some experience of their ministries in my work in a nearby city, and would vouch for them-- their work is impressive. The church itself is happy-clappy Pentecostal so not everyone's cup of tea of course.
We do this through mobile hunger relief and medical programs, residential rehabilitation programs adults, a shelter for victims of human trafficking, transitional housing for homeless families, foster care intervention programs, job skills training, life skills, counseling, basic education, Bible studies and more. - See more at: http://www.dreamcenter.org/about-us/#sthash.dirQFrBZ.dpuf
quote:Well, that was the point I was laboring to suggest. Or at least, be willing to die. Or that, conversely, making survival of the institution a goal is ironically the thing most likely to kill it.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The moral seems to be 'Sometimes a/the church must die in order to be resurrected'.
quote:Would it have better if God had been trying to get out?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My rector used to say that God was thumping on the church door, trying to get in.
quote:That assumes that he's inside. I think my rector was saying that he wasn't, a rather bold claim, but I suppose rhetorical exaggeration. I'm happy to think that he's inside and outside, although I suppose that messes with lots of theology, maybe.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:Would it have better if God had been trying to get out?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My rector used to say that God was thumping on the church door, trying to get in.
quote:I liked the joke though.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:That assumes that he's inside.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:Would it have better if God had been trying to get out?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My rector used to say that God was thumping on the church door, trying to get in.
quote:Like you, I think He's everywhere!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:That assumes that he's inside. I think my rector was saying that he wasn't, a rather bold claim, but I suppose rhetorical exaggeration. I'm happy to think that he's inside and outside, although I suppose that messes with lots of theology, maybe.
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:Would it have better if God had been trying to get out?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My rector used to say that God was thumping on the church door, trying to get in.
quote:Totally agree. I think the best thing we can do is be who we are-- a community of broken, flawed, often quirky people seeking God-- as authentically and transparently as possible, and tangibly demonstrate welcome those who are interested in what that's all about. It won't be what everyone is looking for all the time, or even most people most of the time. But there will be people who find themselves at a point in their lives where that's what they're looking for, and they'll appreciate the open door without all the smoke and mirrors.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We clearly cannot win on entertainment grounds. There will always be something more thrilling to do with the time: on Netflix, outdoors, at restaurants, with your drinking buddies. I believe my church's current pitch is the community aspect -- exhibiting the body of believers, and hinting that you could join it.
quote:Do you really think that people 2,000 years ago didn't understand what happens to the bodies of living creatures when they die?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Why should anyone accept the idea of resurrection when they are well aware of what actually happens to the bodies of living creatures when they die?
quote:Really? It offends you so much if someone mentions God that you must stay away? And yet, you have no issue with our speaking of God on the Ship.....
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As someone who would love to be able to attend a weekly meeting where there is singing, a routine of words which make one think afresh each time they are repeated (I do not use the word 'inspirational' because it tends to make me wince!, with an opportunity to hear organ music played well, etc, I am sorry that such is not available minus mention of God at present.
quote:I love it - these are all the reasons I still attend Church.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yes it is still going and doing rather well.
quote:Catching up. The stories are not about knocking on doors but finding out what people here in this neighborhood personally need. And that carries a risk - Someone needs a ride to the doctor one time, but someone else is on dialysis and needs a ride twice a week forever during normal work hours (when you have fewest volunteer), so the fear is being overwhelmed by the needs. Or fear they taking advantage of you by sending you to fetch groceries so they can stay home and watch the soaps.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:My point was not that this is common in the US-- it's not-- nor that it was always successful in American consumerist terms... What stood out to me in both stories was rather how unusual they were, how counter-cultural, in being willing to suggest that a church "dying" might be part of a bigger narrative....
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyone knocking on doors [in UK] and asking how he might serve people over here would either be told where to get off or else still be knocking doors in 50 years time with little but worn boot leather to show for it.
quote:No of course I did not think that. However, from ancient times and cultures there have always been very large numbers of people who were convinced that some spirit or soul could survive. As far as I know, the only ancient culture that had atheists prepared to express such opposing ideas were the ancient Greeks.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Do you really think that people 2,000 years ago didn't understand what happens to the bodies of living creatures when they die?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Why should anyone accept the idea of resurrection when they are well aware of what actually happens to the bodies of living creatures when they die?
quote:No, it certainly does not ‘offend’ me – as a church-goer for half my life, I fully understand how one can feel as a believer. I used the word ‘wince’ because now, as an atheist, I would so much want to dispute the idea of and belief in God, that it would be wrong of me to spend my time at a CofE service.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Really? It offends you so much if someone mentions God that you must stay away?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As someone who would love to be able to attend a weekly meeting where there is singing, a routine of words which make one think afresh each time they are repeated (I do not use the word 'inspirational' because it tends to make me wince!, with an opportunity to hear organ music played well, etc, I am sorry that such is not available minus mention of God at present.
quote:Yes! That’s because it is always so interesting to read all the different viewpoints. The only discussion group near enough to me has a rule that religious questions are not allowed – but that sort of philosophical discussion would be the most interesting part. The reason was that people might be offended. Well, such precious sensitivity rather inhibits discussion, doesn’t it?
And yet, you have no issue with our speaking of God on the Ship.....
quote:I agree with that of course, but the ‘but’ here is that I need taking to and guiding at concerts; I’m a bit old for inspirational stuff, but thank you for the suggestion re you tubes etc.
Without it being about God, there would be no point in Church Worship Services. There are plenty of organ and choir concerts, and singsongs, where God is not worshipped or mentioned at all. There are lots of 'inspirational' speakers captured on Youtube who don't mention God at all. Why are they not satisfactory?
quote:Very interesting - thank you. On Sunday morning, as I was doing my usual walk and hearing the church (recorded!) bells, I did give a passing thought to directing my steps that-a-way, but immediately decided I preferred the exercise and (with hearing aids on) listening to the bird song all around.
As others have said, many have not left God, but they have left church as the people who attend are not the image of perfect Christians. Rather we are fallible human beings, hopefully allowing the Holy Spirit's guidance in our lives so that we will grow in patience, kindness, self control, gentleness, love of others, etc. These attributes in action help others to see God too. They might even come to Church, to find out more about the living God we worship. We can hope and pray, and do our best.
quote:Thank you for posting the link.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yes it is still going and doing rather well.
Jengie
quote:It is always difficult to impose a modern word like 'atheism' on ancient cultures, but it is arguable that the Samkhya, Mīmāṃsā, Jain and Cārvāka schools in India (all several centuries BC) can be described as atheist.
SusanDoris: As far as I know, the only ancient culture that had atheists prepared to express such opposing ideas were the ancient Greeks.
quote:Thank you - I have had a look at Sankhya in wikipedia. Interesting. Indian cultures still involve a great deal of praying to various gods though, don't they, even though they do not appear to have a one creator god. I will read more.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:It is always difficult to impose a modern word like 'atheism' on ancient cultures, but it is arguable that the Samkhya, Mīmāṃsā, Jain and Cārvāka schools in India (all several centuries BC) can be described as atheist.
SusanDoris: As far as I know, the only ancient culture that had atheists prepared to express such opposing ideas were the ancient Greeks.
quote:I'm sure that, try as they might, they won't be able to live up to your standards of atheism.
SusanDoris: Indian cultures still involve a great deal of praying to various gods though, don't they, even though they do not appear to have a one creator god.
quote:Why indeed. If it was so obvious to rational people that theistic religion was bunk, why do you think we still believe in it?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The biggest problem I think all churches with diminishing numbers have is that there is no God that any of them can bring people back to. To try to encourage people to have faith in something which is not available to any of their senses or to investigation or testing no longer works as it did in the days before the information age. Why should anyone believe in miracles when they know what medicine can do? Why should anyone accept the idea of resurrection when they are well aware of what actually happens to the bodies of living creatures when they die?
quote:English cultures also involve a great deal of praying, but that doesn't exclude atheism as a philosophical standpoint among some of the English.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Indian cultures still involve a great deal of praying to various gods though, don't they, even though they do not appear to have a one creator god.
quote:There are, of course no 'standards' of atheism! I lacka belief in any god. And that's the best definition of atheism.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm sure that, try as they might, they won't be able to live up to your standards of atheism.
quote:It wasn't 'bunk', it was humans, having evolved with the ability to think about and question their existence and their surroundings, coming up with the answer that there must be a cause, which had many names and forms.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If it was so obvious to rational people that theistic religion was bunk, why do you think we still believe in it?
quote:Well, unfortunately I can't disagree with that!! I shall, however, maintain my optimism that by the time I die quite a few more of the world's population will have come to the same conclusion as atheists.
As far as I can see, you've just got to accept that we really believe in it, despite being relatively rational.
quote:Oh dear! I do of course have to agree with you too.
Originally posted by mdijon:
English cultures also involve a great deal of praying, but that doesn't exclude atheism as a philosophical standpoint among some of the English.
Buddhism also classically denies a creator God but does allow for many beliefs that would be regarded as supernatural.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
quote:Why? Even if you are right, what possible gain would there be?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I shall, however, maintain my optimism that by the time I die quite a few more of the world's population will have come to the same conclusion as atheists.
quote:Okay. Fortified by coffee and a (well, two actually) slice of toast and marmalade, with feet tucked into my electrically-heated footwarmer, and having to wait indoors instead of being out in the sun because of a delivery, I will try and answer!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Why? Even if you are right, what possible gain would there be?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I shall, however, maintain my optimism that by the time I die quite a few more of the world's population will have come to the same conclusion as atheists.
quote:Can you think of a reason why I should agree with your description of my thinking as ‘faulty’?!
It seems to me that you so value your own faulty thinking…
quote:Of course it is obvious that there is good in the ‘other positionin the same way that every single human has a genetic make-up which gives them a set of characteristics ranging from the horrible to the very good. Very few indeed are wholly reliant on themselves and do not need any other human being at all for any aspect of living from when they become independent until their death. After all, one of the main reasons for our species survival was the co-operation amongst groups of humans.
t…hat you are unable to see anything good in the other position.
quote:Hold your fire, Tex! Unless I'm being unfairly generous to Susan Doris, her point is that atheism doesn't offer anything—that's the point. Atheism is not a philosophy or way of life; not any more than how you define yourself by your lack of belief in fairies or Thor.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Yes, I think we should all get back to having wars about territory, about oil, about resources. We could have human rights abuses and still do nice stuff like digging wells for clean water. We could argue and riot about politics and the rich - poor divide. In the future we will likely have riots, uprisings, wars and terrorism about wealth and even basic stuff like food and clean water access. But atheism will solve all of that because human beings are all so wonderful and kind and good that we will live in a complete utopia where not one solitary person will ever think to themselves, 'I am better than that person' or, 'I deserve more than them.'
I think this has to be the biggest crock of shit post I've ever read here. If you can't see faulty thinking in it, well I have no words....
quote:Well, that's different from what you said. Originally, you asked why anyone should believe in resurrection when they know what happens to the body at death. Now you've switched to talking about souls or spirits, which by definition are not bodies.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:No of course I did not think that. However, from ancient times and cultures there have always been very large numbers of people who were convinced that some spirit or soul could survive.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Do you really think that people 2,000 years ago didn't understand what happens to the bodies of living creatures when they die?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Why should anyone accept the idea of resurrection when they are well aware of what actually happens to the bodies of living creatures when they die?
quote:Are you for real? I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that proves there isn't a magical purple donkey living on one of the moons of planet Zingbo.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[QUOTE]
I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that souls do not exist.
quote:You're being unfairly generous. She is arguing that old, old, tired and weak argument that religion is the cause of all ill in society, that without it we would all be so much better, that atheism is a sort of solution in a non-solution sort of way. Now that's a Facebook argument for the Fox News generation. It shows no respect for anyone, least of all the people you are having a 'reasoned' debate with. It boils down to playground debate where feigned politeness hides an ugly truth.
Hold your fire, Tex! Unless I'm being unfairly generous to Susan Doris, her point is that atheism doesn't offer anything—that's the point. Atheism is not a philosophy or way of life; not any more than how you define yourself by your lack of belief in fairies or Thor.
quote:Also no need for poetry, for art, for beautiful music: can't explain it, therefore it isn't worth anything.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Human nature being what it has evolved to be, with enough strong and basically good survivors to allow for the large number whose aim is to destroy others for a whole list of excuses to exist, it is inevitable that there will always be a mixture. However, the good that a lack of belief in any God/god/s could do is to enable people to understand that all the knowledghe, all the behaviours, all the good and all the bad is done by humans, entirely by humans. There would be no need for time to be spent (I wil refrain from using the word 'wasted' here) in acquiring all the gold and silver ware, rich vestments, palaces, planes, cars, etc etc for the leaders of religions and all the energy involved could be spent on education of young people, so they learn and understand the history and reasons for all religious beliefs; on providing clean water, and all the other good things we in the developed world are lucky enough to have; on better communication of the above; on finding ways to re-direct the violent, ddestructive nature of terrorists into more tolerant ways of behaving.
quote:This is utter gibberish. I can point to you to many people with deep faith who are totally committed to "improving the lives of others" because their understanding of the deity suggests that self-sacrifice is part of the deal.
Yes, I know that is an unreachable goal and that there are good people everywhere who do their best to work toward improving the life of others, but if they are doing it in the name of any god, or think there is any god providing any kind of back-up, then the parts of their minds that are used by this could be totally focused on the fact that human thinking is 100% of it.
quote:I think most people of goodwill acknowledge that there is something positive in the alternative view - whereas it appears you are only interested in religion to the extent that it trains you in how to destroy it.
Can you think of a reason why I should agree with your description of my thinking as ‘faulty’?!
quote:That's a pretty poor excuse for the things you've said. Totally lacking in any sense of generosity.
Of course it is obvious that there is good in the ‘other positionin the same way that every single human has a genetic make-up which gives them a set of characteristics ranging from the horrible to the very good. Very few indeed are wholly reliant on themselves and do not need any other human being at all for any aspect of living from when they become independent until their death. After all, one of the main reasons for our species survival was the co-operation amongst groups of humans.
At this point, please imagine me saying the words of the woman who, at the end of several series of Morecambe and Wise shows, would advance from the back of the stage, fling them apart and say, ‘Thank you for coming to my little show,’ or, in this case, ‘reading my post’!
quote:Sure, I'm for real. Aside from the fact that I don't think these are comparable predicates—SusanDoris said there have always been very large numbers of people who have believed that souls or spirits exist, and I'm not aware that very large numbers of people throughout history have believed that a magic purple donkey lives on a moon of planet Zingbo—the point is that SusanDoris was suggesting (and I am perhaps reading in from her other posts) that, unlike those people in the past, we now know that souls or spirits do not exist. I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Are you for real? I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that proves there isn't a magical purple donkey living on one of the moons of planet Zingbo.
I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that souls do not exist.
quote:I did not intend to imply any of the above negative possibilities and I am sorry if you thought I did. Maybe the negativity is in you, not me.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Yes, I think we should all get back to having wars about territory, about oil, about resources.
<snip>
But atheism will solve all of that because human beings are all so wonderful and kind and good that we will live in a complete utopia where not one solitary person will ever think to themselves, 'I am better than that person' or, 'I deserve more than them.'
quote:Here again, you infer something I do not imply. I have never blamed religions, it is 100% the people who invent the gods, believe their claims and assertions, and make up the rules; some of those people tell others they must do this or that anti-social act because some god has ordered it.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
She is arguing that old, old, tired and weak argument that religion is the cause of all ill in society, that without it we would all be so much better, that atheism is a sort of solution in a non-solution sort of way.
quote:But that's the old negative proof fallacy, isn't it?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
quote:Thank you for saying. I'll leave this and join that.
Originally posted by Boogie:
As the subject is at rather a tangent to this thread I have opened another to maybe direct our thoughts towards whether religion is pointless or not.
quote:Not on my part, no, because I am not asserting a proposition to be proven at all. It is you who have asserted, in essence, that unlike many people of the past, people now know that souls and/ore spirits do not exist. Yet you have not presented any evidence of how this is known.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But that's the old negative proof fallacy, isn't it?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
quote:Again, the burden of proof is on you. Pathetic try.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Not on my part, no, because I am not asserting a proposition to be proven at all. It is you who have asserted, in essence, that unlike many people of the past, people now know that souls and/ore spirits do not exist. Yet you have not presented any evidence of how this is known.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But that's the old negative proof fallacy, isn't it?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
quote:No, you're quite right, you didn't imply it, you stated it in black and white.
Here again, you infer something I do not imply
quote:There is no burden of proof on me when I haven't set out to prove anything. I am under no obligation to prove that SusanDoris's assertion is wrong, but I am entitled to ask her the basis of that assertion.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Again, the burden of proof is on you. Pathetic try.
quote:I agree, more or less. I will admit I approached this with some recollection of previous threads, where it has been asserted that "of course, we know . . . ," with no basis for the assertion given other than "we know" and a general appeal to science. Perhaps it was not helpful for me to do so.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it could actually be argued both ways. This is one reason why we shouldn't feel that we can assert rules of debate and rhetoric.
There is no obvious steady-state position with regard to the existence of the soul, hence there neither sides (or both sides) can be said to be arguing the novel position which needs to be defended with evidence.
quote:That was his point. And it applies as much to your argument as it does to his.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But that's the old negative proof fallacy, isn't it?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
