Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
SusanDoris, thank you soooo much. The concept of 'why?' outside of faith has troubled me a little. To accept that there is no 'why' is liberating. You've just made my Christmas that much better.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Easy to answer the first part of your question, as I'm sure you know. The second part is impossible to answer and points to the futility of such surveys.
Originally posted by anteater:
Can someone explain what millenials are, in such a way as to clarify why it makes sense viewing them as a group with a coherent attitude?
quote:The generation born roughly between the early 80s and the year 2000, give or take.
Originally posted by anteater:
Can someone explain what millenials are, in such a way as to clarify why it makes sense viewing them as a group with a coherent attitude?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:It might help (might!) if we were not referred to as 'the lost'. Even if talking amongst yourselves, we hear. Some of us feel that we have become 'the found'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you want to reach the lost, and there is this big group of unchurched people with many things in common, it might behoove one to find out something about what they have in common and how one might present the gospel to them. This doesn't seem like rocket surgery to me.
quote:I don't know whether I count as a Millennial or not. But I can't be far off - how are we defining the term?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My granddaughters and their partners are millennials (although they do not refer to themselves as such as far as I know!) but they are non-believers as are quite a few of their friends. (I was going to say 'most of their friends', but I'd have to check about that with them first.)
I wonder how millennials who are God-believing reconcile their beliefs which are based on faith without objective (etc etc) evidence with the knowledge-based scientific and technological world they inhab it and, sensibly, take for granted? Why would they accept the beliefs and stories of nearly 2,000 years ago over the up-to-date understanding of the facts?
quote:My apologies - my intent with the word 'strident' was to separate a particular group of atheists of particular mindset, in much the same way as I would identify a particular group of 'fundamentalist Christians'. In both cases I'd suggest the adjective considerably separates those it identifies from the majority of those to whom the noun applies!
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Some Christians find it difficult to accept or understand that people outside of the church can be deeply spiritual. And rational!
And I do wish people wouldn't suggest that atheists are usually 'strident'.
One member of my family who is 'atheist' is a deeply spiritual person. He attended Mrs Wuntoo's church for the annual carol service in support of other members of the family who were taking a prominant role (including this 'atheist'). He was very deeply moved by the playing of a trumpet solo whilst a video clip of the wise men travelling was being shown. He's not a millenial but the trumpet player (another non-attender) is.
Doesn't prove anything, of course.
quote:Not if you accept the basic 'I am' premise. It is possible to identify scapegoating as a process that all of us are in danger of using against anyone else. 'I am' is a good antidote. 'You are' isn't.
Originally posted by Martin60:
That scapegoats us.
quote:That last sentence is true of course - scientists will always acknowledge that the word proof does not mean 100% proved - but what you have said in that post definitely needs saying. I mention occasionally, not just here, that the word 'spiritual' is not for the exclusive use of believers!
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Some Christians find it difficult to accept or understand that people outside of the church can be deeply spiritual. And rational!
And I do wish people wouldn't suggest that atheists are usually 'strident'.
One member of my family who is 'atheist' is a deeply spiritual person. He attended Mrs Wuntoo's church for the annual carol service in support of other members of the family who were taking a prominant role (including this 'atheist'). He was very deeply moved by the playing of a trumpet solo whilst a video clip of the wise men travelling was being shown. He's not a millenial but the trumpet player (another non-attender) is.
Doesn't prove anything, of course.
quote:Yes, and I think that is unfair. The beliefs, traditions and rituals of religions have been so much a part of life for thousands of years, that for people to move away from that to having the confidence to see them as, in fact, superstition isn't going to happen in a hurry.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Based on recent surveys, many folks find God improbable because of the global evidence of suffering on a large scale, particularly of innocents. The world gives ample evidence that 'no Good God is sovereign over it'.
So belief in God is seen as superstitious weakness by many people ...
quote:Bugger! That means I scapegoated you!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Not if you accept the basic 'I am' premise. It is possible to identify scapegoating as a process that all of us are in danger of using against anyone else. 'I am' is a good antidote. 'You are' isn't.
Originally posted by Martin60:
That scapegoats us.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Because there is more to life than knowledge base science and technology. Such disciplines can explain the how of life, but they cannot explain the why of life, nor can they cannot give purpose to life.
I wonder how millennials who are God-believing reconcile their beliefs which are based on faith without objective (etc etc) evidence with the knowledge-based scientific and technological world they inhab it and, sensibly, take for granted? Why would they accept the beliefs and stories of nearly 2,000 years ago over the up-to-date understanding of the facts?
quote:The same way that many of the rest of us believers—including, I'd wager, most believers here on the ship—do. Gramps49 gives a good description. I'm not knocking science at all, but there are many questions in life that science simply can't answer and facets of life where science really has little of meaning to contribute, at least for my money. For me at least, those questions and facets of life tend to be the ones that matter more.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder how millennials who are God-believing reconcile their beliefs which are based on faith without objective (etc etc) evidence with the knowledge-based scientific and technological world they inhab it and, sensibly, take for granted? Why would they accept the beliefs and stories of nearly 2,000 years ago over the up-to-date understanding of the facts?
quote:Yes. I just watched some of the A&E documentary about the Church of Scientology. Actress Leah Rimini and a few other ex-scientologist were trying to explain why they stayed so long in a system that was abusive and expensive even after they began to realize they had been conned. They all agreed that they found it hard to give up the main thing Scientology offered them -- certainty. I think Christians make a big mistake when they try to water down Christ's message for the young.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Turn up the heat! Preach the Gospel
quote:I think Twilight is onto something. This past month I saw a study of Canadian mainline churches that showed the more "liberal" or "progressive" ones are declining at a faster rate than the "conservative" or "orthodox" ones. If I can find a link today or tomorrow I will post it.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Twilight: -- certainty. I think Christians make a big mistake when they try to water down Christ's message for the young.
If I was a millenial I think I would find that quite patronising. As if there is no certainty outside of 'Christ's message' for 'the young'. They also might ask what this 'certainty' is.
quote:
Focusing on 2003-2013, the researchers defined "decline" as an average loss of 2 percent of church attendees a year. "Growing" churches were gaining people in the pews at a rate of 2 percent or more. ...
Crucial findings in this study showed that, in growing churches, pastors tend to be more conservative than the people in their pews. In declining congregations, pastors are usually more theologically liberal than their people.
quote:I see no reason why this would apply differently to Millenials from other Canadians.
* Clergy in growing churches affirmed, by an overwhelming 93 percent, that Jesus rose from the dead, leaving an empty tomb, while 56 percent of clergy in declining churches agreed. Among laypeople, this divide was 83 percent vs. 67 percent.
* In growing churches, 46 percent of clergy strongly affirmed, and nearly 31 percent moderately affirmed, this statement: "Only those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ will receive eternal life." Zero pastors in declining churches affirmed that statement and 6 percent moderately agreed.
* In growing congregations, 100 percent of the clergy said it's crucial to "encourage non-Christians to become Christians," while only 50 percent of pastors in declining churches agreed.
* In declining churches, 44 percent of pastors agreed that "God performs miracles in answer to prayers," compared with 100 percent of clergy in growing congregations.
quote:Basically what I said about the American evangelicals voting for Trump. You'd almost think nothing much had changed in 13 years, except that the nasties had caused more damage to the church in general this time.
quote: Imagine this situations: what if there was a vocal group within your church pressing for those with extreme racist views or those who supported domestic violence to be held up as examples and teachers of the Christian faith? What if there was a group that said that life-long drunkenness, usury, gambling or gossip should be accepted as a Christian virtue? How do you think your church would respond? Maybe it would be quite natural for rules against promotion of such things to come into force?
And what's the common denominator of all these things you mention, Anglican Rascal?
Clue: they all harm and hurt people
quote:It has become more and more clear to me over the years that the answer to the question, 'why are we here?', is, 'there is not a reason 'why'. We are here because we were conceived and born, because our parents mated. We are fortunate if we were wanted and nurtured well, but the act was biological, in an unbroken chain since life began. We evolved with language, so the question 'why' must have been thought of very early on, and is still running well after a million or so years! There is no reason why I am here; all aims and purposes I have had or will have are generated by my brain/mind. Other people may suggest purposes, but in the end the decision is always mine alone. If there is a question, why, to be answered about us, humans, then the same question must be asked about all other living creatures.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Because there is more to life than knowledge base science and technology. Such disciplines can explain the how of life, but they cannot explain the why of life, nor can they cannot give purpose to life.
quote:Yes you are right of course; the best stories from all times in history help to teach us how to live, behave and become better people.
Why should one pay heed to stories that are 2,000 years old? Actually, much longer than that. Because they still have meaning today.
quote:I think 'asserts' is more accurate than 'affirms’!
For instance let's just take the first creation story. It affirms God was actively involved in all levels of creation. It also affirms God created out of love, and it affirms all creation is good. Other than God saying "Let there be..." it does not answer how it came into being.
quote:There is no reason why, and any value attributed to the world is entirely subjective and man-defined.
Now scientific theory has shown that the development of the universe has taken billions of years. It has also given us a good idea of how life has evolved, but it does not explain why nore does it give value to the world as we know it.
quote:Could you elaborate on this, I wonder? If the question, 'why are we here' is still being asked way into the future, then I believe it is the wrong question!!
Science and technology are constantly changing. What we hold "true" now may be discounted twenty years from now, but many of the questions religious stories address will remain. Does that mean their answers will hold true? Maybe not. But they do give us a basis for finding the answers to the challenges of tomorrow.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Thank you. When you do ponder the questions that matter more to you, is there a sort of format you use? That sounds like a daft and too vague a question, I suppose, but do you start with the assumption that your beliefs are a given? When I contemplate existence, life, the universe and everything, I do not give any time or credence to the possibility that there might be a God.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:The same way that many of the rest of us believers—including, I'd wager, most believers here on the ship—do. Gramps49 gives a good description. I'm not knocking science at all, but there are many questions in life that science simply can't answer and facets of life where science really has little of meaning to contribute, at least for my money. For me at least, those questions and facets of life tend to be the ones that matter more.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder how millennials who are God-believing reconcile their beliefs which are based on faith without objective (etc etc) evidence with the knowledge-based scientific and technological world they inhab it and, sensibly, take for granted? Why would they accept the beliefs and stories of nearly 2,000 years ago over the up-to-date understanding of the facts?
quote:It seems the AofC has said something about Christianity providing certainty. I will have to find out the details later, but of course for me there has to be better certainty than faith alone.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Twilight: -- certainty. I think Christians make a big mistake when they try to water down Christ's message for the young.
If I was a millenial I think I would find that quite patronising. As if there is no certainty outside of 'Christ's message' for 'the young'. They also might ask what this 'certainty' is.
quote:Many thanks for saying! I have been a member of BHA and NSS for years now and live without belief in anything coming under the heading of supernatural. However, I have always enjoyed discussions where there are so many different aspects of belief and this forum is about the best I think.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
SusanDoris, thank you soooo much. The concept of 'why?' outside of faith has troubled me a little. To accept that there is no 'why' is liberating. You've just made my Christmas that much better.
quote:Hmmmm, well I think there is a huge difference!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is not a lot of difference between unasking the "why" question and accepting that you are a player in the Author's mysterious long term plot.
However, I agree with your nextSentence: quote:
The conclusion is the same; we'd better get on with what is in front of us.
quote:Oh, I see.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I meant in terms of our attitudes to purpose. A life lived without purpose is a pity.
quote:That'll do.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I suppose the purpose is to live each day in the best way I can until I run out of time!
quote:To me, Pancho's clips seemed to be saying that the growing churches are teaching that belief in Jesus is the way to eternal life (a certainty) and that God can and does perform miracles in our lives.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
There is the possibility that the "growing" churches preach a return to some imaginary version of the 1950's, when Everything Was Just Alright (while ignoring the huge disparities in the Western cultures). This provides a comfortable space for people who feel threatened by the world as it is. Lord knows, we all feel that need at the moment - it's just that most people don't want to be that hateful.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Twilight: what difference does it make whether we go to church on Sunday or just volunteer at the food pantry once in a while?
quote:Of course, a lot of Christians do both, and there many churches that facilitate this kind of provision.
Don't tempt me!
quote:I think it's even more complicated, since 'why' is one of those bendy stretchy words, like a piece of chewing gum. Hence, the famous question, why is the kettle boiling, has at least two answers, because I want a cup of tea, and because water turns to steam at a certain temperature. And there are probably others, e.g. because I switched it on.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I am having some difficulty in following the argument in this thread so what I now say may not make sense or be relevant - but I'll say it anyway because, for me, it makes sense and it's relevant.
I suspect that we may be addressing two different ‘why's’.
The ‘why’ that I found difficult to answer and which SusanDoris has suggested is not a question, is "why are we here" as asked by my (evangelical) Christian friends whose answer to the ‘why’ is something along the lines of ‘to love God, to obey his commandments, to save the lost and to prepare for eternal life in heaven’. This is an impossible answer to the impossible question, as I see it. The question has confused me (until SusanDoris spoke) and it simply didn't occur to me to challenge the validity of the question.
The ‘why’ with which I have no problem is ‘why are we here’ meaning ‘what are we here for?’ . My response to that would be along the lines of ‘to love others as we love ourselves’ with all that that involves. This, for me, is certainly not aimless or without purpose or meaning.
Twilight: what difference does it make whether we go to church on Sunday or just volunteer at the food pantry once in a while?
Don't tempt me!
quote:AFAIUI, though, Hillary Clinton didn't even try to reach out to evangelicals. She didn't visit any churches or ministers. She didn't pretend to care about them. When I read that, it struck me as politically unwise. Her evangelical supporters should have advised her to take the disgruntled evangelical vote more seriously.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I read into day's paper that 81% of white evangelical Christians voted for Trump. So OK, I'm done. Never been white, and now I know I'm not evangelical. Christianity is on the bubble.
quote:Yes, thank you , I had a very pleasant day. There was far less traffic and so, new hearing (very good, but I don’t like the design, NHS) hearing aids on, I could hear more of the birds more often! Several joggers were out, millennials, maybe?!
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Hi SusanDoris. I hope you had a happy Christmas morning walk with the "bells" in the distance.
quote:Recitation of facts without a reasonably good understanding of them of course does not imply or, I suppose, impart, knowledge and there are not many I think who would do that.
I suppose how you approach the question of the supernatural you will come to different questions as to whether there is a why, a value, or a purpose to life. My point is that the mere recitation of facts, or data, does not completely give us all knowledge. There is also philosophical knowledge in addition to natural and social knowledge.
quote:Yes, that is quite understandable and I see what you mean, but the writers could not and did not contemplate, let alone consider, that all this had happened naturally without any God involved.
When I referred to the first story of creation from the Bible I purposely used the term "affirms" because I see the story as a creedal statement of faith in answer to the chaotic creation stories of the surrounding cultures.
quote:I wonder whether there is research which shows that millennials are less likely to ask the question why, since they have been, one hopes, brought up, educated and lived in a world where, testable, verifiable knowledge is available to them with a mouse click. A much greater amount of critical thinking teaching could well be a very good thing, I think. If they ask you the question why, what can you tell them that is true, and where a method is available to be used to show how this is decided? [
While you say the question of why is the wrong question for you, it is only for you. Many people do ask that question.
quote:I don’t suppose there are many people who do not seekvalue and purpose, but there is nowhere outside of human thoughts, words, writings, ideas and others’ examples from which such values and purposes can be seen, are there?.
Many people still seek value. Many people still wonder if there is purpose. People look for answers through their spiritual practices.
quote:I assume we both mean amoral people, not the materials.
One other reason religion is still relevant is that it offers an ethical approach to the world. We can see how unethical people have used science and technologies to advance their own goals. Religion offers a counter-balance to an amoral science or technology.
quote:Certainly! The discussion is the thing, every time.
Anyway, I know we will remain at polar opposite ends when it comes to the supernatural, but I have enjoyed your insights on many questions--there can still be a lot of middle ground.
quote:I'm not sure why evangelicals would turn against Trump. During the campaign, there was some talk that his rather unseemly personal life might alienate a lot of them, and we had all these media reports about students at Liberty Baptist outraged that Falwell jr. was endorsing him etc. But then election day rolls around and, well, 81%.
But I think it will not take long before the 81% evangelicals will regret putting their eggs into his basket.
quote:Yes, that's it.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
For me, the question of "why" is not about why we are here, but why creation happened in the first place. Now, I would grant a nonbeliever can just say creation just happened, a wrinkle in the space/time continuum that kind of got out of control. For a believer the why is because God is love.
quote:The idea of separation of the races dates well before the integration of public schools. AME and AME Zion were founded back in the early 1800s because the Methodist churches were separating whites and blacks. Even the Catholic church segregated. The Black Catholic History (diocese of Charleston) site details some though it glosses over a few facts (for instance it implies the the first Black Catholic priest in the diocese was circa 1967, Egbert Figaro, but in fact he did not become a priest in the diocese until 1978 (his obit; the obit also mentions that the Diocese of Camden, NJ, was not accepting 'colored' seminarians as late at 1947).
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I do not see the liberal churches having to pare down Christianity at all. No, I see liberal churches having to stand up to the corrupt teachings of "Evangelicals." It is a known fact the modern evangelical movement in the US got started as a reaction to the integration of blacks into American society. It was not until public schools were integrated did you see a movement to keep the races separate which began in reactionary churches.
quote:I nod in agreement. Essentially, though, we are here because evolution has produced life which does or does not survive, and we are the luckiest species, descendents of an ancient ancestor ape. We evolved to have languagetoo, which has enabled us to develop, refine, use, unfortunately for good or ill, but mostly good, our lives and behaviours which have been organised into laws. We are not here in order to love others – most of us do it because we canot help it and such behaviours, however, altruistic they may be, give us our greatest happiness and contentment.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I am having some difficulty in following the argument in this thread so what I now say may not make sense or be relevant - but I'll say it anyway because, for me, it makes sense and it's relevant.
I suspect that we may be addressing two different ‘why's’.
The ‘why’ that I found difficult to answer and which SusanDoris has suggested is not a question, is "why are we here" as asked by my (evangelical) Christian friends whose answer to the ‘why’ is something along the lines of ‘to love God, to obey his commandments, to save the lost and to prepare for eternal life in heaven’. This is an impossible answer to the impossible question, as I see it. The question has confused me (until SusanDoris spoke) and it simply didn't occur to me to challenge the validity of the question.
The ‘why’ with which I have no problem is ‘why are we here’ meaning ‘what are we here for?’ . My response to that would be along the lines of ‘to love others as we love ourselves’ with all that that involves. This, for me, is certainly not aimless or without purpose or meaning.
quote:I haven't been inside churches of every denomination, but I suspect you could more or less answer that question by finding out what the overall denomination's teaching is on evolution.
Do the churches who want to attract the millennials to their congregations tell and encourage them to know and understand the TofE, or do they downplay it in favour of the beliefs of their denominations?
quote:I'm never sure what's meant by evangelical. The exit poll religion question asked people if they were "born-again/evangelical." I don't consider myself "born-again," and my very liberal, ELCA Lutheran church has evangelical in it's name. I wonder how the other Christians voted?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I read into day's paper that 81% of white evangelical Christians voted for Trump. So OK, I'm done. Never been white, and now I know I'm not evangelical. Christianity is on the bubble.
quote:And the German Democratic Republic's name had "democratic" in it.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm never sure what's meant by evangelical. The exit poll religion question asked people if they were "born-again/evangelical." I don't consider myself "born-again," and my very liberal, ELCA Lutheran church has evangelical in it's name.
quote:I don't know that I have a "format" as such, but no, I do not necessarily start with an assumption that my beliefs are a given. Not saying I always question my assumptions, but I think it's fair to say that I do question them with some regularity—including questioning the existence of God. For me, giving thoughtful consideration to anything includes asking the question "what if my assumptions are wrong?" and "what if my conclusions are wrong?"
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
When you do ponder the questions that matter more to you, is there a sort of format you use? That sounds like a daft and too vague a question, I suppose, but do you start with the assumption that your beliefs are a given?
quote:So why do you start with the assumption that your beliefs—specifically your belief that there is no God—are a given? Why do you not questions the assumptions you start with?
When I contemplate existence, life, the universe and everything, I do not give any time or credence to the possibility that there might be a God.
quote:Why couldn't they consider it? The existence of people who didn't believe in gods in the ancient world aside, there are creation myths from many cultures that either don't involve gods at all or don't involve gods directly creating, much less creating out of love. In fact as I understand it, the Genesis myth (for it is myth, in the proper sense of the word) is the exception in that regard.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
. . . but the writers [of the Gensis creation stories] could not and did not contemplate, let alone consider, that all this had happened naturally without any God involved.
quote:I'm afraid I don't understand at all why education and testable, verifiable knowledge would make millenials, or any one else, less likely to ask "why" questions. That just makes no sense to me, and I suspect it would be equally baffling to my children, both of whom are well-educated, intelligent millenials with very good critical thinking skills.
wonder whether there is research which shows that millennials are less likely to ask the question why, since they have been, one hopes, brought up, educated and lived in a world where, testable, verifiable knowledge is available to them with a mouse click. A much greater amount of critical thinking teaching could well be a very good thing, I think. If they ask you the question why, what can you tell them that is true, and where a method is available to be used to show how this is decided?
quote:And why is that? Why can't we help it? Why does it make us happy and contented? To me that is the God part. Love and compassion can't be seen by scientific methods, but we feel them for some reason.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
We are not here in order to love others – most of us do it because we canot help it and such behaviours, however, altruistic they may be, give us our greatest happiness and contentment.
quote:That's because the ELCA, and Lutherans generally, use "evangelical" in its original sense. Those whom the poll were talking about use it with a more recent meaning, albeit the more common meaning in English usage these days,
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm never sure what's meant by evangelical. The exit poll religion question asked people if they were "born-again/evangelical." I don't consider myself "born-again," and my very liberal, ELCA Lutheran church has evangelical in it's name. I wonder how the other Christians voted?
quote:When you dig into it, it turns out that the hardcore YECers actually dispute most of physics, chemistry, biology and geology because once you start questioning the age of the universe you have to pull down pretty much all the sciences. People really underestimate how well supported and how interconnected modern science is.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know why some churches have dug their heels in about evolution, but it's a very small arguing point to me. The umbrella of "science," covers masses of other information that no Christian is disputing.
quote:I do think that it is pretty interesting to ask what it would take to arrange things on the planet so that there was universal peace, kindness and prosperity.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:And why is that? Why can't we help it? Why does it make us happy and contented? To me that is the God part. Love and compassion can't be seen by scientific methods, but we feel them for some reason.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
We are not here in order to love others – most of us do it because we canot help it and such behaviours, however, altruistic they may be, give us our greatest happiness and contentment.
Is it "why we are here?" I have no idea.
quote:Fair enough. That's probably very true in the USA. I don't think it entirely reflects the situation elsewhere, though.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I do not see the liberal churches having to pare down Christianity at all. No, I see liberal churches having to stand up to the corrupt teachings of "Evangelicals."
quote:Sort of.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Did you know the word the Apostles creed for creator is the same world we get our English word for poet? Kind of puts an interesting twist on the concept of the why of creation.
quote:There is no reason to think it was in Latin. It was a Greek conference in Greek territory and the records we have are in Greek. We have some translated into Latin, it is true. But there is absolutely no reason at all to think the council was in Latin or the creed was written in Latin.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The English version of the Apostle's Creed is a translation of the Latin (which is probably the original language, but who knows for sure). The Latin word used that we translate as "creator" is Creatorem, which is not connected to any words, Latin or English, related to "poet."
quote:Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but what was a Greek conference in Greek territory? What council? Are you talking about the Nicene Creed? If you are, then you're not talking about what I was talking about.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:There is no reason to think it was in Latin. It was a Greek conference in Greek territory and the records we have are in Greek. We have some translated into Latin, it is true. But there is absolutely no reason at all to think the council was in Latin or the creed was written in Latin.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The English version of the Apostle's Creed is a translation of the Latin (which is probably the original language, but who knows for sure). The Latin word used that we translate as "creator" is Creatorem, which is not connected to any words, Latin or English, related to "poet."
Further there is no one English translation, and plenty of them have been translated from and checked against the Greek.
Whose propaganda have you been sniffing?
quote:But we're not debating this on some invitation site, or some church website. We're debating this on the Ship of Fools, a place specifically set up, in part, for this kind of debate. One doesn't expect potential converts who aren't into this sort of shit to come here and seek it out. And any that come here and stay more than five minutes are probably the kind of nutjobs like ourselves who get off on this sort of thing.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps slap everyone whose into Latin or Greek. That is yhe sort of this that loses everyone. How does that make it more likely things they click 'like' and 'may attend'? (And I am hopelessly dating myself with such passé reference to old social media....)
quote:I don't think that's true at all. I'm sure it loses some people, but some people—including some millenials even—find it interesting and even potentially meaningful. Whether it's generations or any other cohort group, one size dies not fit all.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps slap everyone whose into Latin or Greek. That is yhe sort of this that loses everyone.
quote:Thank you. When one comes to think of it, this is actually a major dichotomy, isn't it. If a child or young person is taught/learns, 'I believe in God,' and even more, 'maker of ....',
Originally posted by Stetson:
Though I suppose that doesn't mean that those churches actively ENCOURAGE their flock to study evolution, just that they don't actively DISCOURAGE it. But they probably don't really encourage you to study the laws of gravity or the theory of relativity either, simply because it's not their mandate to teach those things.
quote:Does that apply also to everyone who's into correct English?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps slap everyone whose into Latin or Greek. That is yhe sort of this that loses everyone. How does that make it more likely things they click 'like' and 'may attend'? (And I am hopelessly dating myself with such passé reference to old social media....)
quote:Well the basic response is that the laws of nature are also brought into being by God, and are the means by which creation is achieved. Like all analogies this is imperfect, but the question is a bit like asking whether it was the spanner or the mechanic which tightened the nut.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
When one comes to think of it, this is actually a major dichotomy, isn't it. If a child or young person is taught/learns, 'I believe in God,' and even more, 'maker of ....',
and also learns about our species' evolution, what should the answer be when s/he asks how both these answers can be true.
quote:Good one.
Originally posted by Martin60:
The laws of nature are independent of God, just like the laws of God.
quote:It's not really a dichotomy at all, unless one insists on a literal reading of the Gensis story, complete with 7 24-hour days, etc.—which most Christian traditions don't. The answer to that child is that the theory of evolution tells us the mechanics of how we developed as a species, while the Genesis creation myth tells us why and that our development as a species was not happenstance or accidental.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Thank you. When one comes to think of it, this is actually a major dichotomy, isn't it. If a child or young person is taught/learns, 'I believe in God,' and even more, 'maker of ....',
Originally posted by Stetson:
Though I suppose that doesn't mean that those churches actively ENCOURAGE their flock to study evolution, just that they don't actively DISCOURAGE it. But they probably don't really encourage you to study the laws of gravity or the theory of relativity either, simply because it's not their mandate to teach those things.
and also learns about our species' evolution, what should the answer be when s/he asks how both these answers can be true.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Those are mutually exclusive positions.
quote:I don't see them as mutually exclusive. All you have to do is understand that God created the laws that govern evolution. You can also say that God is the power that continually moves it forward, according to His laws.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Those are mutually exclusive positions.
quote:And why do you say that? My understanding is that's not really what evolutionary theory says.
Originally posted by Martin60:
We developed as a species was by happenstance and accident.
quote:Do you know what it is that always brings you back to the faith/belief answer?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:I don't know that I have a "format" as such, but no, I do not necessarily start with an assumption that my beliefs are a given. Not saying I always question my assumptions, but I think it's fair to say that I do question them with some regularity—including questioning the existence of God. For me, giving thoughtful consideration to anything includes asking the question "what if my assumptions are wrong?" and "what if my conclusions are wrong?"
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
When you do ponder the questions that matter more to you, is there a sort of format you use? That sounds like a daft and too vague a question, I suppose, but do you start with the assumption that your beliefs are a given?
quote:I should have said that I ]no longer spend any time giving credence to the possibility of any god, however, I will be always ready to change my mind if one actually turns up.
quote:So why do you start with the assumption that your beliefs—specifically your belief that there is no God—are a given? Why do you not questions the assumptions you start with?
When I contemplate existence, life, the universe and everything, I do not give any time or credence to the possibility that there might be a God.
quote:Yes, you are right, I was trying not to use too many words! I was thinking that all ancient peoples did not have the huge amount of accumulated knowledge we now have of the world and our galaxy, nor the technology etc to test and verify their religious beliefs. we must of course acknowledge the ways that knowledge builds up continuously.
quote:Why couldn't they consider it? The existence of people who didn't believe in gods in the ancient world aside, there are creation myths from many cultures that either don't involve gods at all or don't involve gods directly creating, much less creating out of love. In fact as I understand it, the Genesis myth (for it is myth, in the proper sense of the word) is the exception in that regard.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
. . . but the writers [of the Genesis creation stories] could not and did not contemplate, let alone consider, that all this had happened naturally without any God involved.
quote:I was thinking particularly of the ‘why are we here’ question when it is followed by an answer something like, ‘God made us’. I was thinking, too, of the younger people who hav seen the scientific method at work, lived through the years since the launching of the Voyagers, watched a probe land on a comet, and seen how medical treatments are rapidly improving. They would, perhaps should, recognise that the possibility of any god or 2,000-year-dead person is still listening to prayers, etc must begin to be, in fact, incredible.
quote:I'm afraid I don't understand at all why education and testable, verifiable knowledge would make millenials, or any one else, less likely to ask "why" questions. That just makes no sense to me, and I suspect it would be equally baffling to my children, both of whom are well-educated, intelligent millenials with very good critical thinking skills.
I wonder whether there is research which shows that millennials are less likely to ask the question why, since they have been, one hopes, brought up, educated and lived in a world where, testable, verifiable knowledge is available to them with a mouse click. A much greater amount of critical thinking teaching could well be a very good thing, I think. If they ask you the question why, what can you tell them that is true, and where a method is available to be used to show how this is decided?
quote:How can they even attempt to answer a question when there are zero observations to start with from which they might attempt a hypothesis?
This goes back to my statement above that for my money, there are questions that science is completely ill-equipped to answer.
quote:Without language and evolved human thoughts and ideas, the world would still be as it is but our particular species would not have the ability to transmit our thoughts about, for instance, a glorious sunset, to our fellow humans. Similarly, with behaviours which enable us to live.
What is beauty? What is goodness—not just in the abstract, but in the living of life?
quote:Yes, that is certainly a trickier, and probably never-ending, question, especially as definitions of words become so blurred at times. However, there are innumerable facts, concrete nouns, recognisable by all creatures and each can be given different names by different peoples, but the thing itself remains the same, whether named or not. With abstract nouns, there must be a majority acceptance of meaning, otherwise our human world would grind to a halt, but any idea, such as God, which is believed to be true by some is not as a result true for others.
What is truth—not fact, but truth? I know of no method for testing those things, but I think questions like this are worth contemplating.
quote:All these feelings and emotions are produced by chemicals etc in the brain and have evolved to perform those functions. The effect of well-being, contentnent and what we call happiness have been an essential part of our species' successful survival, along with the ability to use language to express abstract thought as a vital part of this. For me, this is sufficiently exciting, wonderful, amazing, etc in itself with no need to put forward the idea of a god to have started it. An the answer to how the universe started is not a complete don't know and will no doubt become a little less unknown as time goes on.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:And why is that? Why can't we help it? Why does it make us happy and contented? To me that is the God part. Love and compassion can't be seen by scientific methods, but we feel them for some reason.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
We are not here in order to love others – most of us do it because we canot help it and such behaviours, however, altruistic they may be, give us our greatest happiness and contentment.
quote:Why do you think you need another reason apart from biology?
Is it "why we are here?" I have no idea.
quote:But that is not what they say. Atheists lack belief in all gods, rather than all gods except one, and believe in the verified Theories of Science, knowing always that they can be challenged and subsequently improved or changed if necessary.
I grew up Presbyterian, have been a member of several different main stream denominations and never heard a word against evolution. I'm always surprised to hear atheists or agnostics say, "I don't believe in God -- I believe in science...
quote:Thank you - I agree. Those who believe in God - and there is not going to be any but a very small change in that for a hundred or more years I think - add an unnecessary complexity to the world as it is anyway.
..." as though the two things are incompatible. With a few exceptions, Christians go to doctors when they are sick and believe everything their high school chemistry teacher told them. We thank God for new discoveries that help us.
I don't know why some churches have dug their heels in about evolution, but it's a very small arguing point to me. The umbrella of "science," covers masses of other information that no Christian is disputing.
quote:Still not seeing a false dichotomy, Jacques Monod's conclusion that human life emerged by chance notwithstanding.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye Nick, I deliberately missed out what Jacques Monod said: chance AND necessity. You didn't! You engaged in the false dichotomy first, I just ran with it.
quote:No, I don't exactly, other than that I ultimately seem unable not to believe. It's what puts the puzzle pieces together for me. It's what rings true, despite the doubts.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you know what it is that always brings you back to the faith/belief answer?
quote:I lived through all of those things, plus the first moon landing. Lots and lots of people did who still believe.
I was thinking, too, of the younger people who hav seen the scientific method at work, lived through the years since the launching of the Voyagers, watched a probe land on a comet, and seen how medical treatments are rapidly improving. They would, perhaps should, recognise that the possibility of any god or 2,000-year-dead person is still listening to prayers, etc must begin to be, in fact, incredible.
quote:But that's true of many things. Life is a mix of the biological and, for want of a better term, the beyond-biological. To pick up on another thread, why does some music give us chills, or why does some music give some people chills and not others? The scientific explanations about chemical reactions and the like are good as far as they go, but for many of us they don't go far enough.
quote:How can they even attempt to answer a question when there are zero observations to start with from which they might attempt a hypothesis?
This goes back to my statement above that for my money, there are questions that science is completely ill-equipped to answer.
quote:An impossibility, I'm afraid! We have evolved to survive and that means the maintenance of genes which would enable us, if the world became .such a hostile environment, to have enough of the fittest to survive.
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]I do think that it is pretty interesting to ask what it would take to arrange things on the planet so that there was universal peace, kindness and prosperity.
quote:Okay, but evolutionary theory itself doesn't create that dichotomy, you are imposing the dichotomy because of the assumptions you are layering on evolutionary theory.
Originally posted by Martin60:
The false dichotomy being (theistic evolutionary) creation or blind chance.
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It seems to me that for some people, the questions that matter are the ones that can be tested by the scientific method, and if a question cannot be tested by the scientific method it is not worth asking. For others of us, the questions that cannot be tested by the scientific method are the more interesting and meaningful questions.
quote:I can't speak for "most" scientists, SusanDoris. But I know enough scientists who would include a fourth category—those for which the scientific method is not the appropriate way to find an answer—to think they are not a small minority.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It seems to me that for some people, the questions that matter are the ones that can be tested by the scientific method, and if a question cannot be tested by the scientific method it is not worth asking. For others of us, the questions that cannot be tested by the scientific method are the more interesting and meaningful questions.
I think most scientists would say that all questions are worth asking but then need to be allocated to different headings; those where a method can be used to find the answer; those which cannot and are almost certainly fiction; and those which for the moment remain don’t knows.
quote:That is what some atheists say. Some atheists believe as you describe, some specifically lack a belief in the Abrahamic God but seem to have no problem believing in spirits of various sorts, and some seem to have as little belief in science as though do in God. Atheists, like everyone else, come in a variety of shapes and sizes.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But that is not what they say. Atheists lack belief in all gods, rather than all gods except one, and believe in the verified Theories of Science, knowing always that they can be challenged and subsequently improved or changed if necessary.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I grew up Presbyterian, have been a member of several different main stream denominations and never heard a word against evolution. I'm always surprised to hear atheists or agnostics say, "I don't believe in God -- I believe in science...
quote:As you say, the demographics suggest that belief in God isn't going to die out on a global level within that time. Western countries are predicted to see ongoing disaffiliation from Christianity, but populations in the West are declining, and therefore have less impact on overall figures.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Those who believe in God - and there is not going to be any but a very small change in that for a hundred or more years I think - add an unnecessary complexity to the world as it is anyway.
quote:Yet you can't deny that the world is changing. Why wouldn't it continue to change with respect to the relative quality of peace, kindness and prosperity?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:An impossibility, I'm afraid! We have evolved to survive and that means the maintenance of genes which would enable us, if the world became such a hostile environment, to have enough of the fittest to survive.
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]I do think that it is pretty interesting to ask what it would take to arrange things on the planet so that there was universal peace, kindness and prosperity.
quote:Yes, the idea of selection seems to counter pure randomness, doesn't it? I suppose you can have random selection, as in lotteries, but natural selection ain't it. It's one of the interesting things about mimicry and camouflage, that an animal's environment begins to be painted on its back.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Okay, but evolutionary theory itself doesn't create that dichotomy, you are imposing the dichotomy because of the assumptions you are layering on evolutionary theory.
Originally posted by Martin60:
The false dichotomy being (theistic evolutionary) creation or blind chance.
Evolutionary theory does not say that evolution happens by blind chance; indeed, I think that assertion is actually contrary to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory includes chance and randomness, but not all evolution is random or by chance. It's a mix of random and non-random.
quote:What method do they use then to reach a conclusion, or even a theory? What procedure do they follow? In all my years on forums, I have never heard of such an alternative method.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I can't speak for "most" scientists, SusanDoris. But I know enough scientists who would include a fourth category—those for which the scientific method is not the appropriate way to find an answer—to think they are not a small minority.
quote:I meant to edit that and say , ‘….believ the verified…’ and leave out the word ‘in’.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
But that is not what they say. Atheists lack belief in all gods, rather than all gods except one, and believe in the verified Theories of Science, knowing always that they can be challenged and subsequently improved or changed if necessary.
quote:Yes, there are those who seem to have no difficulty believing things where 100% faith is needed and it is quite puzzling , but the number of such scientists in the Physics, chemistry and Biology fields is, I understand very low.
I saidThat is what some atheists say. Some atheists believe as you describe, some specifically lack a belief in the Abrahamic God but seem to have no problem believing in spirits of various sorts,
quote:Yes, that is true! No argument there!
some seem to have as little belief in science as though do in God. Atheists, like everyone else, come in a variety of shapes and sizes.
Thank you for an interesting thread - it has been a really nice day, reading, thinking and responding !!
quote:Of course I agree it can change and most people will hope for a time when they can get on quietly with their lives, but anger, aggression and the fight/flight response will remain, won't it, because without it the evolutionary drive to survive would not be available if our species is in danger of imminent extinction. This is vanishingly unlikely to happen while I live, but, and I do not write this with any overtones of scorn or anything, prayers will not produce any help from any god
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yet you can't deny that the world is changing. Why wouldn't it continue to change with respect to the relative quality of peace, kindness and prosperity?
quote:Thank you - as I have just said to gramps, this has been such an interesting day.
Our genes are certainly a limiting factor, but only relatively so.
quote:In other words chance and necessity.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Still not seeing a false dichotomy, Jacques Monod's conclusion that human life emerged by chance notwithstanding.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye Nick, I deliberately missed out what Jacques Monod said: chance AND necessity. You didn't! You engaged in the false dichotomy first, I just ran with it.
And I think, at least in evolutionary theory terms, the operative words are "random" and "non-random."
quote:And I think economics played a significant role in the decline of religious participation. The more expressive forms of Christianity were supported best by the poor (Lanternari: The religions of the oppressed - I keep mentioning!). So, with upward social and economic mobility religious expression became less ('pentecostal') or disappeared. I am pretty sure I have observed this in my own lifetime with the (Caribbean) black-led churches in Britain - goodness me, even the longer established black-led churches join in the ecumenical activities of organisations they once thought beyond the pale.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point by Svitlana about middle class church-going. It's possible that it began to decline among working class people, not because of scientific knowledge, but because of social hierarchy. I mean, the posh might visit the poor, but did that inspire the poor to read their religious homilies?
It seems rather cartoon-like to argue that along came science, good-bye religion; this ignores the social context of religions. As Svitlana indicated, the middle class presumably had imbibed more scientific knowledge, yet clung to religion.
quote:And you, the Incurable Optimist?!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Of course I agree it can change and most people will hope for a time when they can get on quietly with their lives, but anger, aggression and the fight/flight response will remain, won't it, because without it the evolutionary drive to survive would not be available if our species is in danger of imminent extinction. This is vanishingly unlikely to happen while I live, ......
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yet you can't deny that the world is changing. Why wouldn't it continue to change with respect to the relative quality of peace, kindness and prosperity?
quote:I wouldn't disagree with you here. All churches in Britain face the same formalising, upwardly-mobile impulses that the sociologists have noted. Once disdainful groups eventually seek the prestige of association with traditional churches.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I think economics played a significant role in the decline of religious participation. The more expressive forms of Christianity were supported best by the poor (Lanternari: The religions of the oppressed - I keep mentioning!). So, with upward social and economic mobility religious expression became less ('pentecostal') or disappeared. I am pretty sure I have observed this in my own lifetime with the (Caribbean) black-led churches in Britain - goodness me, even the longer established black-led churches join in the ecumenical activities of organisations they once thought beyond the pale.
quote:How do you know what music you find beautiful and meaningful, and why? How do you decide whether to marry someone, or whether you love someone? How do you know, for sure, that someone loves you? How do you decide who to vote for in the next election? How do you decide whether to keep up medical treatment in hopes of a cure or whether to call in hospice? How do you decide what justice looks like in a particular context and what is unjust in a particular context? How do you decide what things in life you value and what things you don't?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:What method do they use then to reach a conclusion, or even a theory? What procedure do they follow? In all my years on forums, I have never heard of such an alternative method.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I can't speak for "most" scientists, SusanDoris. But I know enough scientists who would include a fourth category—those for which the scientific method is not the appropriate way to find an answer—to think they are not a small minority.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, I'm not sure if it's so wonderful that (millennial + other) working class black Pentecostals become discouraged and leave the church. They don't necessarily become more 'scientific' and 'rational' as a result, but they may lose the mutual support and cultural capital that they had previously had. (Some of them of course became Rastafarians, or more recently, Muslims. You might not see that as an improvement....)
quote:This is a bit problematic. Seen from the inner city where I live, most 'mainstream' congregations are majority black. So it may be true to say that for cities but not for other areas: I cannot see the 'decline and fall 'of suburban and rural Christianity happening yetawhile.
David Voas said that the future of British Christianity was in the hands of black believers, and if immigration continues, this may indeed be so. Christianity certainly isn't projected to be facing decline in Africa over the next century.
quote:{sigh}. I really did use preview post. That should have been rejection of church.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Meanwhile, in the context of this thread, I think it's very important to remember that rejection f chick . . . .
quote:I admit even in many liberal churches there were times when they have been misogynist, racist, homophobic, classist, and irrelevant. Fact is, there is a movement within the ELCA (#decolonizetheELCA) that argues in our desire to become integrated we actually put up more barriers to integration--long story. We have a lot of sins to confess in this regard. However, I would argue that we have done a lot to evolve into better institutions. Sometimes, though, we can be as slow as molasses on a cold winter's day, which I think frustrates many of the millennials I whom I have been working.
People reject church for all kids sic of reasons, including rejection of institutions generally or a (justifiable) belief that church is mysogenist, racist, homophobic, classist and/or irrelevant.
quote:I wish more Christians I know had that motto.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
BTW, SusanDoris, I just read in my local paper that an atheist group has formed a Sunday Assembly in Salt Lake City, the center of Mormonism. This is based on the Sunday Assemblies in Britain. I like their motto: Live better; help often; wonder more. I think I can do business with them.
quote:Churches may be stronger in some well-heeled suburban areas, but in many rural areas congregations are frequently struggling, or have already closed.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Seen from the inner city where I live, most 'mainstream' congregations are majority black. [...] I cannot see the 'decline and fall 'of suburban and rural Christianity happening yet awhile.
Ah, I've forgotten that this thread is about millennials .... so I may be wrong.
quote:As I understand it, life began by chance; it might have begun and quickly become extinct several times, but we know it began once. From then on, there is an unbroken line of life where those which have randomly mutated are lucky to have adaptations which enable them to survive changing conditions. I think it is an estimated 95 milion species that became extinct. Combined with natural selection and survival of the fittest, the process continues. Do you agree?
Originally posted by Martin60:
In other words chance and necessity.
quote:My character, which includes optimism!, must be from my genetic make-up, but I’m also a realist and like to know things clearly, not through any disguising filter. I hope that enables me to appreciate better the infinite capacity of the brain to imagine. There is a margin between fact and fiction which will never disappear and where there are unknowns but it is becoming less as time goes on.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:And you, the Incurable Optimist?!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
This is vanishingly unlikely to happen while I live, ......
I think I agree with you - but I like to hope that you are wrong, that humankind will come to its senses and evolve into something more beautiful, less with feeling the need to survive by eliminating those with whom it disagrees.
Yep, I've been called naive before.
quote:Thank you. As you can see I have taken this sentence out to respond to first. The scientific method, which I have just checked on Wikipedia, starts with a question, but that needs to be followed by observations via one or more of our senses. If this is not objectively possible, then the scientific method cannot be followedand it is the best and well-tried and tested method there is. What I have not seen yet is any other method of finding an objective answer to questions such as, ‘why are we here?’
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The point is, there are lots of questions that matter for which the scientific method is an inappropriate way to find an answer.
quote:Apart from the fact that a very long time ago now!) I made a disastrous mistake there, all questions involving aesthetics are personal, subjective, and are formed in the brain which itself is entirely material.
How do you know what music you find beautiful and meaningful, and why? How do you decide whether to marry someone, or whether you love someone? How do you know, for sure, that someone loves you?
quote:I think about it and make a personal decision based on the best info I can find andtake responsibility for that decision..
How do you decide who to vote for in the next election? How do you decide whether to keep up medical treatment in hopes of a cure or whether to call in hospice?
quote:On this subject, my personal opinion might not be the same as the Law’s, but the code of law is the best people can do at present and in any case is constantly modified.
How do you decide what justice looks like in a particular context and what is unjust in a particular context?
quote:By what I have observed, learnt, etc but there is no independent method by which we all might or must decide on what we value or not. Again basically it is subjective.
How do you decide what things in life you value and what things you don't?
quote:Yes, I agree.
Meanwhile, in the context of this thread, I think it's very important to remember that rejection of chirch, by millenials or anyone else, is not necessarily rejection of belief in God. People reject church for all kinds of reasons, including rejection of institutions generally or a (justifiable) belief that church is mysogenist, racist, homophobic, classist and/or irrelevant. Hence the growing segment of the population here that identifies as "spiritual but not religious."
quote:Excellent!! I wish there was one near me!
Originally posted by Gramps49:
BTW, SusanDoris, I just read in my local paper that an atheist group has formed a Sunday Assembly in Salt Lake City, the center of Mormonism. This is based on the Sunday Assemblies in Britain. I like their motto: Live better; help often; wonder more. I think I can do business with them.
quote:Not quite sure what you mean by incarnational, in relation to atheists, but certainly I know some Buddhists who (to me), embody life, I mean they live life to the full, they are open to life, and other people, and so on. Nowt to do with God.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I find it amusing that atheism doesn't know how to be incarnational either, doesn't even know, like that which it despises, that that is all that's needed and it wants to emulate the useless unincarnational model of that which it despises.
quote:Neither do I understand what you mean, can you flesh it out a bit.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I find it amusing that atheism doesn't know how to be incarnational either, doesn't even know, like that which it despises, that that is all that's needed and it wants to emulate the useless unincarnational model of that which it despises.
quote:I think that a realist ought to recognize that there are trends that are moving in a positive direction with respect to crime, child mortality, literacy and health that are likely to continue.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:My character, which includes optimism!, must be from my genetic make-up, but I’m also a realist and like to know things clearly, not through any disguising filter.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:And you, the Incurable Optimist?!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
This is vanishingly unlikely to happen while I live, ......
quote:I was wondering whether to ask politely for a translation, please!
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:Neither do I understand what you mean, can you flesh it out a bit.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I find it amusing that atheism doesn't know how to be incarnational either, doesn't even know, like that which it despises, that that is all that's needed and it wants to emulate the useless unincarnational model of that which it despises.
quote:Also, religious beliefs have been such an integral part of history since before writing was invented that it would be foolish indeed to despise them. The more we know about them, the better future generations will be able to consider whether the various deities really exist or not.
][/However, here's one (non-theist) atheist who does not despise what I think you think I despise! My guess is that most atheists who have thought the issues through are too concerned about other things to despise very much at all.
quote:Ah, okay, I can understand that - thank you!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I get the sense of 'incarnational' that all things are sacred, or life is sacred, and also that the profane and the sacred are one. Oh damn, does this mean that I have to produce an argument for that? No, I just assert it, as I am in the liminal space between Xmas and New Year, when all things are in the sacred womb.
quote:Earlier this week I listened to a book called 'The Elephant whisperer' by Laurence Anthony which was excellent. A conservationist to his fingertips, Laurence Anthony died at the age of 62 in 2012 which is so sad when people like him are so needed. (He was the man who saved the Baghdad zoo.)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are positive things in society; however, I think somebody has already mentioned, the ongoing mass extinction is pretty awful. I see cheetahs are the latest animal under threat. And of course, climate change is a big black mark. I don't blame Christianity for these things.
quote:Thanks.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Oooh and Mark, I fully acknowledge that you are no despiser, I've always liked your contributions.
quote:
Atheist despising is pace the despite-arch, Dawkins and the sophomoric atheist self-congratulators all over FaceBook who will always fail as they can't love their enemies.
quote:I wouldn't be so unkind as to agree - oh, I don't know ... yes, I would .... I understand what you are saying!
I think I might be backsliding in to gnomic obscurantism, nay obscurity here ...
quote:I think there is one near you - google their website.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Excellent!! I wish there was one near me!
Originally posted by Gramps49:
BTW, SusanDoris, I just read in my local paper that an atheist group has formed a Sunday Assembly in Salt Lake City, the center of Mormonism. This is based on the Sunday Assemblies in Britain. I like their motto: Live better; help often; wonder more. I think I can do business with them.
quote:Thank you - I googled, and yes there is one in Bournemouth. I go with an atheist friend to Humanist group meetings there when we feel we want to listen to the talk. I'm very independent of course and wil go train/taxi or all taxi but there are times when only some peripheral vision is realy very annoying!
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I think there is one near you - google their website.
For me, it seems to be too alike to church although I have never attended one. Church is still too close for me.
