Talking Religion...

[jwinslow]

A thread in the poli forum reminded me of this one, so I brought that thought here.

Let's hope this is a more thoughtful inquiry than some on there which are laced with hyperbole & polarizing digs.

We now know that many of those "gods" were just natural phenomena, courtesy of modern science.

A neat strawman, but not really relevant to civil conversations about a major religion like Christianity.

I've found myself fascinated with the concept of religion in recent years and have spent more time reading about them and studying them than I did when I was a practicing Catholic years ago.

Yet your rants still ooze of a reaction to catholicism rather than the variety of religions and approaches out there.

I was baptized so young I don't even remember it. I completed two other sacraments of the church by the age of 10. I was just doing what I was told. After all, the other kids were doing it, too. If I had fathered children in my 20s I probably would've raised them the same way, passing on the tradition of religion for another generation without ever really thinking about it.

Unfortunate but people do many things out of obligation without actual devotion/faith/love behind it. This isn't exclusive to religion, you find this in politics, relationships, occupations, etc.

You're not supposed to think about it.

This is what I'm talking about regarding your reaction to Catholicism. This concept is simply not biblical. Believing in absolute truth is not the same as blindly refusing to test your faith and teachings against what you know and have learned about God.

I remember asking questions about Mary - my dad had become a baptist preacher, which was a lot different than going to catholic mass I'm here to tell you - who is not held in such high regard outside catholicism. No one could ever really give me an answer

This is a vague sentence, who couldn't answer? Everyone in the world? Your preacher dad? Catholics?

If they did, they pointed to their bible - the catholic bible, I guess the apostles wrote multiple variations of "the word of god", go figure - because that was all they knew.

No offense Jake, but this sentence demonstrates a pretty severe lack of understanding of the Gospels and more like the byproduct of some website bullet-lists. See muffler's slew of posts for objections to the bible with a proper understanding of the passages, context & meaning of those books. I don't agree with his viewpoint, but he's taken a thoughtful approach to reach those disagreements with the bible.

I doubt they had really ever read the book.

Who? The world's populace that you asked about Mary?

Unfortunately, I did, and a lot of it sounds like the ramblings of prehistoric men on hallucinagenic drugs than any all-knowing, benevolent god in the sky.

I don't find many tripping dudes to be lucid, let alone consistent in their stream of consciousnesses.

 

[Taosman]

Any thoughts on why many are continuing to leave the church? I remember 30 years ago the Catholic church was worried about youth leaving and it seems to still be going on. (numbers down)

 

[AKAK]

Any thoughts on why many are continuing to leave the church? I remember 30 years ago the Catholic church was worried about youth leaving and it seems to still be going on. (numbers down)

Google?

 

[muffler dragon]

There are always people joining and leaving.

 

[Gatorubet]

There are always people joining and leaving.

Leaving in Europe and the Americas, joining in Africa.

 

[Taosman]

Let me rephrase. Young Americans not going to church.

Young Americans Losing Their Religion

New Research Finds Number Who Claim No Church Has Risen Sharply

By DAN HARRIS
May 6, 2009
New research shows young Americans are dramatically less likely to go to church -- or to participate in any form of organized religion -- than their parents and grandparents.
"It's a huge change," says Harvard University professor Robert Putnam, who conducted the research.
Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent. However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.
Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7513343&page=1

 

[jwinslow]

People today want to make up their own morality and religion. It's not exclusive to any group either, a huge chunk of those who claim to follow Christianity pick and choose which passages, principles and portions of the religion fit their needs. It's one thing to reject organized religion, it's a whole different bombshell to operate under one banner but cut it up like a coupon booklet.

 

[Taosman]

Are you talking about "Deisim', Josh?

Deism: Alive and Well in America
By Steven Waldman

When historians refer to some of the Founding Fathers as "Deists," it's as if they're talking about an extinct philosophy, like alchemy or phrenology. Very few Americans go around describing themselves as Deists.
Well, perhaps that ought to change. A new study reveals that a rapidly growing number of Americans hold the belief system that used to be described as Deism.

Library of Congress Many Americans embrace a faith strikingly similar to that of Thomas Jefferson.

Deism was a philosophy, especially popular in the 18th century, holding that God had created the universe and its laws but then receded from the action. It was treated as heretical -- akin to atheism -- because Deists rejected Biblical authority. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, wrote that the authors of the canonical Gospels were "ignorant, unlettered men" who laid "a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications." He famously crafted his own Bible sans miracles.
This brings us to a new study about the rise of "Nones," Americans who profess no religious affiliation. Trinity College analysts now conclude that Nones make up 15% of the population and that, given their rate of rapid growth, their numbers might soon surpass the nation's largest denominations.
The rise of the Nones is usually decried by religious leaders as a sign of secularization or atheism's ascent, but get this: 51% say they believe in God.
Now, some of those folks might just be religious people in between churches. So the Trinity folks asked them to describe what kind of God they believed in. 24% say they believe in "a higher power but no personal God."

That would mean about 3.6% of Americans could be considered Deists, making them more common than Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or Mormons.
And that's if you use a pretty narrow definition of Deism. In my book, Founding Faith, I argued that even the so-called Deists of the 18th Century were a bit more religious than we think. Both Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin believed that God intervened in history. A recent study by the Pew Religion Forum found that 35% of Nones pray weekly or daily.
I suspect that some modern American Deists are actually quite like Jefferson and Franklin. They don't believe in Scripture, or cotton to organized religion. But in the privacy of their home, they think that the distant, aloof God occasionally checks in to listen to their prayers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125365145301031757.html

 

[Jake]

Let's hope this is a more thoughtful inquiry than some on there which are laced with hyperbole & polarizing digs.
A neat strawman, but not really relevant to civil conversations about a major religion like Christianity.Yet your rants still ooze of a reaction to catholicism rather than the variety of religions and approaches out there.
Unfortunate but people do many things out of obligation without actual devotion/faith/love behind it. This isn't exclusive to religion, you find this in politics, relationships, occupations, etc.

This is what I'm talking about regarding your reaction to Catholicism. This concept is simply not biblical. Believing in absolute truth is not the same as blindly refusing to test your faith and teachings against what you know and have learned about God.
This is a vague sentence, who couldn't answer? Everyone in the world? Your preacher dad? Catholics?
No offense Jake, but this sentence demonstrates a pretty severe lack of understanding of the Gospels and more like the byproduct of some website bullet-lists. See muffler's slew of posts for objections to the bible with a proper understanding of the passages, context & meaning of those books. I don't agree with his viewpoint, but he's taken a thoughtful approach to reach those disagreements with the bible.
Who? The world's populace that you asked about Mary?
I don't find many tripping dudes to be lucid, let alone consistent in their stream of consciousnesses.

You did a nice job of taking shots at me but you did nothing to support the existence of your god or the validity of your faith. Then again, when it comes to religion, shooting the messenger is a lot easier than refuting the message because your religion has no basis in reality.

I hope it made you feel better.

 

[MaxBuck]

... laced with hyperbole & polarizing digs.

Better than being laced with strychnine and ionizing radiation.

 

[Jake]

People today want to make up their own morality and religion. It's not exclusive to any group either, a huge chunk of those who claim to follow Christianity pick and choose which passages, principles and portions of the religion fit their needs. It's one thing to reject organized religion, it's a whole different bombshell to operate under one banner but cut it up like a coupon booklet.

Every Christian in the world is cutting up the Bible like a coupon booklet, unless they support concepts like slavery, men's ownership of women, a god who kills babies to make a point, fairy tales about floods covering the entire Earth less than 5000 years ago while a man with a boat kept species alive, and other assorted nonsense.

 

[jwinslow]

You did a nice job of taking shots at me but you did nothing to support the existence of your god or the validity of your faith.

Because we both know you had no intentions whatsoever of engaging me directly on the subject. You just sat back and tossed anti-catholicism grenades large enough to damage anything you could find that vaguely resembled your target.

Then again, when it comes to religion, shooting the messenger is a lot easier than refuting the message because your religion has no basis in reality.

Ironic considering that's exactly what you've been doing in this thread, like these posts

Every Christian in the world is cutting up the Bible like a coupon booklet, unless they support concepts like slavery, men's ownership of women, a god who kills babies to make a point, fairy tales about floods covering the entire Earth less than 5000 years ago while a man with a boat kept species alive, and other assorted nonsense.

Those examples, particularly the middle two, expose your lack of understanding on the subject. Disagreement or disbelief is fine, but this is blatant misrepresentation.

Glad we could distract you briefly from the war against the liberals.

 

[jwinslow]

Are you talking about "Deisim', Josh?

Not really. BKB is somewhat of a Deist, and he falls into the first group

It's one thing to reject organized religion, it's a whole different bombshell to operate under one banner but cut it up like a coupon booklet.

I disagree with his viewpoint but I respect it as an honest & thoughtful way to live & believe. It's intellectually dishonest to choose to be a Christian (or Buddhist, etc) but only accept certain parts that fit your style.

 

[Taosman]

"Intellectually dishonest"?
I understand that there are many "fundamentalist" in this country who see the discussion of religion as a "black or white" issue. That God is a "black or white" issue.
My view is that there is rarely anything "black or white". All or nothing.
I believe that's a more compassionate approach. A more" middle of the road" approach. I don't think or worry much about an "after life".
I have enough to think about this moment!
YMMV.

 

[jwinslow]

"Intellectually dishonest"?

yes, saying you believe something but not actually believing it is dishonest

I understand that there are many "fundamentalist"

for as much as you love using that word, you should really learn when it is accurate to use

in this country who see the discussion of religion as a "black or white" issue. That God is a "black or white" issue.
My view is that there is rarely anything "black or white". All or nothing.

Christ didn't leave any wiggle room, he was either who he said he was or a heretic, but that's really not what I'm talking about here.

I'm talking about accepting Christianity as your world view and purpose in life, but deciding to throw out core principles because you feel like it.

Believing in the Bible but throwing out inconvenient passages. Believing his teachings but choosing to ignore parts about premarital sex, attending church, satan, etc

I believe that's a more compassionate approach. A more" middle of the road" approach.

to me it is more of a lukewarm approach