Originally posted by Abigail
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Hated and feared by a world they are sworn to protect, the X-Men face off against sin
Collapse
X
-
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThis has created a certain amount of resentment at being abandoned politically, and has spawned a new 'Conservative' party focused on moral issues... it almost won a seat in parliament last election (it got 4% of the total nationwide vote, and needed 5%). I would give them a 50-50 chance of getting 5% if they try again next election (which would make it the 5th biggest of the 7 parties in parliament).
Which is all strangely reminiscent of the previous minor conservative Christian party this country had, which folded in 2006 after its leader was charged with multiple sexual offences against young girls. And also reminiscent of another leader of a small historically-Christian/family-values oriented party, who had to resign from his ministerial portfolio two years ago after leaking confidential papers to a journalist he was apparently having an affair with.
So the Christian family-values political figures here appear to literally have a 100% failure rate when it comes to sexual morality in their own lives. It seems to me that the main reason conservatives seem to feel the need to tell others what to do so loudly is because what they're really against is the sin in their own lives that they're unable to deal with.
Meanwhile their lives are a shining testimony to the non-Christian majority of the country as to what godly Christian lives look like... oh, wait..."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
CS Lewis wrote an essay called "The Decline of Religion" (collated into his book "God in the Dock") in the 1940s. He wrote:
http://www.acrossthepage.net/2012/12...e-of-religion/
The ‘decline of religion’ so often lamented (or welcomed) is held to be shown by empty chapels. Now it is quite true that chapels which were full in 1900 are empty in 1946. But this change was not gradual. It occurred at the precise moment when chapel ceased to be compulsory… The withdrawal of compulsion did not create a new religious situation, but only revealed the situation which had long existed. And this is typical of the ‘decline in religion’ all over England.
In every class and every part of the country the visible practice of Christianity has grown very much less in the last fifty years. This is often taken to show that the nation as a whole has passed from a Christian to a secular outlook. But if we judge the nineteenth century from the books it wrote, the outlook of our grandfathers (with a very few exceptions) was quite as secular as our own. The novels of Meredith, Trollope, and Thackeray are not written either by or for men who see this world as the vestibule of eternity, who regard pride as the greatest of sins, who desire to be poor in spirit, and look for a supernatural salvation. Even more significant is the absence from Dickens’ Christmas Carol of any interest in the Incarnation. Mary, the Magi, and the Angels are replaced by ‘spirits’ of his own invention, and the animals present are not the ox and ass of the stable but the goose and turkey in the poulterer’s shop...
Thus the ‘decline of religion’ becomes a very ambiguous phenomenon. One way of putting the truth would be that the religion which has declined was not Christianity. It was a vague Theism with a strong and virile ethical code, which, far from standing over against the ‘World’, was absorbed into the whole fabric of English institutions…
The decline of ‘religion’, thus understood, seems to me in some ways a blessing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostI don't expect either of those quotes will quite speak for themselves to a non-Christian audience, but I'm not sure exactly which points will require the most clarification, so... if you have questions about either quote, let me know and I'll try to give some more context.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostI used to be a Christian, so I understand perfectly well what they're both saying. But I'm not a Christian now, so I disagree with both of them.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostFor example, do you disagree with Ratzinger's assertion that people "in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely"?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostDo you disagree in any but the most obvious sense? For example, do you disagree with Ratzinger's assertion that people "in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely"?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThat was the only bit of your quotes that wasn't immediately obvious in meaning. What exactly is the phrase "a totally planned world" supposed to mean, and why is that likely to be "unspeakably lonely"? I would have thought that if, say, in the future the Google 2.0 AI is planning the world down to the tiniest detail, and selecting optimal friends and spouses for everyone, that would be likely to be a world which was particularly filled with good company (carefully selected to be good) and hence the opposite of lonely.
I don't think Ratzinger in the 60s was anticipating social network friend algorithms, nor was he talking about the worst sort of totalitarian regime, though I think (I can't say his meaning is entirely clear to me) the idea of central planning and the expansion of state responsibility relates to it. When every problem we have has an institutional answer, we lose our initiative. We lose our ability to see and respond concretely to the needs of others-- because that's what the government/whatever institution you like is for. Best to leave it to the experts. Or the algorithm. Whichever you prefer. In either case, we lose the sense of responsibility toward the needs of those around us, or the capacity to really encounter another person.
I don't know if I'm explaining this very well- if anyone else thinks they grasp what I'm getting at, feel free to jump in - but suffice it to say I don't find a technocratic society particularly appealing.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostDo you disagree in any but the most obvious sense? For example, do you disagree with Ratzinger's assertion that people "in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely"?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostThe problem isn't planning as such. Depending on how the world was planned, the people could be mighty unhappy, but I see no reason to think loneliness would be a major problem.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GakuseiDon View PostCS Lewis wrote an essay called "The Decline of Religion" (collated into his book "God in the Dock") in the 1940s. He wrote:
http://www.acrossthepage.net/2012/12...e-of-religion/
The ‘decline of religion’ so often lamented (or welcomed) is held to be shown by empty chapels. Now it is quite true that chapels which were full in 1900 are empty in 1946. But this change was not gradual. It occurred at the precise moment when chapel ceased to be compulsory… The withdrawal of compulsion did not create a new religious situation, but only revealed the situation which had long existed. And this is typical of the ‘decline in religion’ all over England.
In every class and every part of the country the visible practice of Christianity has grown very much less in the last fifty years. This is often taken to show that the nation as a whole has passed from a Christian to a secular outlook. But if we judge the nineteenth century from the books it wrote, the outlook of our grandfathers (with a very few exceptions) was quite as secular as our own. The novels of Meredith, Trollope, and Thackeray are not written either by or for men who see this world as the vestibule of eternity, who regard pride as the greatest of sins, who desire to be poor in spirit, and look for a supernatural salvation. Even more significant is the absence from Dickens’ Christmas Carol of any interest in the Incarnation. Mary, the Magi, and the Angels are replaced by ‘spirits’ of his own invention, and the animals present are not the ox and ass of the stable but the goose and turkey in the poulterer’s shop...
Thus the ‘decline of religion’ becomes a very ambiguous phenomenon. One way of putting the truth would be that the religion which has declined was not Christianity. It was a vague Theism with a strong and virile ethical code, which, far from standing over against the ‘World’, was absorbed into the whole fabric of English institutions…
The decline of ‘religion’, thus understood, seems to me in some ways a blessing.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostI suppose one takeaway from this, along with the Ratzinger quote, is that some of the more perceptive minds within Christianity have seen the collapse of cultural Christianity coming for some time. They know it comes with a painful cost, but they see it as a way of bringing Christianity back to its roots. They weren't worried: why should I be?Last edited by JimL; 06-21-2015, 05:48 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostI suppose one takeaway from this, along with the Ratzinger quote, is that some of the more perceptive minds within Christianity have seen the collapse of cultural Christianity coming for some time.
Also a lot of Christians seem to have both a martyr complex and a persecution complex - they both desperately wish that they were really being persecuted for their faith so they could prove their faith in Christ, and simultaneously tell themselves what massive victims they are any time they fall even the least bit afoul of the most minor law and convince themselves that the entire secular world is out to get them."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo what are these "painful costs" that these perceptive christian minds associate with the collapse of christianity?
Okay, so I couldn't resist that. But my point is that Christians tend to come up with dubious pop-psychology (like "everyone has a secret unfulfilled yearning for Jesus, that we'll call a 'Jesus-shaped hole in their heart'"), or dubious pop-sociology (like "without the Church's moral teachings, society will collapse into anarchy"), that rest not only on zero evidence but run directly counter to all observable evidence. "Perceptive" Christian minds then project those ideas out into a future without Christianity and make absurd statements about how awful society will be. They selectively choose to forget that quite a lot of different human civilizations and cultures existed and thrived prior to the existence of Christianity or prior to the arrival of Christian missionaries.Last edited by Starlight; 06-21-2015, 06:17 AM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostPeople will bleed to death out of the Jesus-shaped hole in their hearts.
Okay, so I couldn't resist that. But my point is that Christians tend to come up with dubious pop-psychology (like "everyone has a secret unfulfilled yearning for Jesus, that we'll call a 'Jesus-shaped hole in their heart'"), or dubious pop-sociology (like "without the Church's moral teachings, society will collapse into anarchy"), that rest not only on zero evidence but run directly counter to all observable evidence. "Perceptive" Christian minds then project those ideas out into a future without Christianity and make absurd statements about how awful society will be. They selectively choose to forget that quite a lot of different human civilizations and cultures existed and thrived prior to the existence of Christianity or prior to the arrival of Christian missionaries.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
144 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 02:22 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
425 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment