Does Christianity Have A Future (BBC 1 Tonight at 10.25pm)

Temaz

Just saw this on tonight's tv guide so I thought I'd give a heads up.

Does Christianity Have a Future?

Today on BBC1 London from 10:25pm to 11:25pm
According to some, Christianity in the UK has no future. Closure of churches and falling attendances in the last few decades appear to show that the Christian faith is in terminal decline. Ann Widdecombe examines the evidence, and discovers at least three areas of Christian growth which are bucking the trend - immigration into the Catholic Church, the Alpha course and the Black Pentecostalist Churches. But even if these do arrest the decline, what about the very long term? Can Christianity survive in a world in which the young seem even less interested in Christianity than their parents? And in such a world, how is it possible to justify an established Church of England and all its privileges? SUB

Donatello

I think the main issue is that in so many cases the Gospel is not proclaimed. I was at Mass just now, and there was a young fellow in the row behind me. He had his head in his hands much of the time, like one either in despair, or else very bored. I was also bored. The Mass, as offered and experienced, is so childish, casual, banal, lame. Of course there are some places where this is not the case, and thank God for those places.

I think what people, especially young people, are rejecting, is not Christianity per se, but the banal, lame, pseudo-Christianity, the humanistic 'Gospel', what I would call in my own Church, 'Catholic Lite'. This is what they reject because it is not life-giving, it is not the Gospel - it is a lame, emasculated, humanistic, counterfeit, which does not challenge, does not call sinners to repentance, does not offer life. Until the fullness of the Gospel is proclaimed, and a fitting worship of God offered in the Mass, the young people will stay away, whilst the older people eventually die off.

I think a major issue now in the Church in Ireland is the old wine skins, new wine problem - our bishops and priests, for the most part, are seemingly incapable of standing up to the mark - to present the real Gospel to the people and to get with the programme. Where the growth is you will find fidelity and orthodoxy, while lameness produces no good fruit, only more lameness.

My own little TV recommendation follows - you can watch this, then watch the Christianity programme.

BBC2 - 8pm - The Secret of Scott's Hut.

Slide show here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13079351

Fanny Cradock

Why does the BBC wheel out Ann Widdecombe when it comes to anything related to Christianity? I can't think of a less sympathetic voice. It's not as if there aren't better options out there.

Donatello

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why does the BBC wheel out Ann Widdecombe when it comes to anything related to Christianity? I can't think of a less sympathetic voice. It's not as if there aren't better options out there.

Isn't Anne a Catholic? I like Anne. She says it like it is.

Better Anne than Stephen Fry. He would be less sympathetic.

limra

all christianity needs to is get a few gnostics to change a few of the commandments that make no sense, that no one follows, maybe add some more environmental stuff, so we think before we are going into nature, drawing on it, desecrating it, supposedly for christ, think about this, bibles are made of paper from trees, a tree must die to give you this message, which is in paper so many millions of times, yet each tree also has a living message unique and relevant to the moment you come to behold it, is the tree not like christ, its being sacrificed cut up and printed on, so that we can have some sense of morality, spirituality from reading bibles, but we needn't continue this process, if we listen to the tree beforehand, perhaps new revelations would come unto us, respecting all trees, all nature, all the earth of the Christ (also the first bibles were written on paper made of hemp, which is a much more renewable resource and one with sacred healing attributes, written of in the bible as wisdom and as the healing of nations, in this time, how can we deny the truth of this?)

the thing is christians mostly seem to be ignoring nature, and not really even practicing a true version of christianity in the modern day, at least not one that stems from the bible as a whole, but maybe from specific parts of it, it makes me sad to read the bible to see how slavery is basically okayed on various levels throughout the entire book, I don't think this is in synch with a true christian way of life, or at least a good way of life, I think also priests should use cannabis again sacramentally, ministers, and reverends, and those going before God, is what i'm talking about, this is the original way that it was, and now many churches are very iffy about cannabis, but the truth is, the church is the main place where it should be growing, the tree of life, in the garden of eden, church is supposed to be a heavenly place, a place of purity and innocence, wisdom and cleansing, freedom and love, which permeates throughout the community...

if no one is practicing in the ancestral ways anymore, that is why there is not as much virtue in christianity anymore, i think mostly at this point its just an incredible act, like theatre, and of course it effects the world, but everyone is being so symbolic and bound to tradition and following elders and conforming, it detracts from the passion of the original message, and actually works against good happening, in some cases, thats my opinion


we must be like christ and not just worship christ, we must see that all that we do unto others, human or non human, we do unto ourselves

Donatello

Cannabis can cause gynocomastia in men, which is less than ideal.

limra

properly prepared cannabis can cure cancer tumors in men and women which is nothing less than miraculous

even if what you say if true, so what? gynocomastia is a totally benign condition

the plant really doesn't have any toxins, its a divine plant, a gift that should be used the world over

Fanny Cradock

Both of you stick on topic.

AhSureTisGrand

I think it'll decline like other faiths that were once a big deal blahdy blah etc etc...




Unless the priest at Mass were on dope... That would be amazing

LondonIrish90

[QUOTE=Donatello;71742946
I think what people, especially young people, are rejecting, is not Christianity per se, but the banal, lame, pseudo-Christianity, the humanistic 'Gospel', what I would call in my own Church, 'Catholic Lite'. [/QUOTE]

No, I think you are wrong. It is not just boring services the young in the United Kingdom are rejecting, it is religion as a whole. Thanks to education, secularism, and better channels of communication, the majority of the young realise that the Christian god is just one of thousands of unprovable deities that have been created by human imagination throughout history.

A very telling statistic is that over half of all Londoners who attend church services are Black Africans, yet they make up less than a fifth of London's total population. Religion in Britain is just about surviving through the traditions of immigrants, otherwise it would be even more of a dead duck.

wolfsbane

'Christianity' is being rejected by most for divergent reasons -
1. Most of it is inauthentic, that is, not the religion preached by Christ and the apostles. It is mere religion, without the power of God that attends the truth - the power of God that persuades the sinner to repent and changes him spiritually. Much of modern Christianity provides only ritualistic tradition, or trendy piety or base sensuality. Neither of those satisfy man's need for God.

2. The churches that are authentic are rejected because they DO present the gospel. And the gospel is too tough for the sinner to face - until the Spirit of God changes his/her mind.

In former days Christianity enjoyed widespread social acceptance. The unconverted in heart was happy to go with the flow, enjoying the respectability brought by adherence to the Church. No need for that now; it's maybe more respectable to be an atheist or agnostic.

So will Christianity die out? Never. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. But it could very well die out in any locality, just as it did in Islamic lands. Britain or Ireland could be the new Albania in a generation or so. Or the new Saudi Arabia.

********************************************************************************************
Isaiah 55:
6 Seek the LORD while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the LORD,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.

Donatello

wolfsbane wrote: »

'Christianity' is being rejected by most for divergent reasons -
1. Most of it is inauthentic, that is, not the religion preached by Christ and the apostles. It is mere religion, without the power of God that attends the truth - the power of God that persuades the sinner to repent and changes him spiritually. Much of modern Christianity provides only ritualistic tradition, or trendy piety or base sensuality. Neither of those satisfy man's need for God.

2. The churches that are authentic are rejected because they DO present the gospel. And the gospel is too tough for the sinner to face - until the Spirit of God changes his/her mind.

In former days Christianity enjoyed widespread social acceptance. The unconverted in heart was happy to go with the flow....[/COLOR]

I can only speak from the Catholic perspective.

1. You are correct in saying most of the preaching is inauthentic. It is hogwash - humanism with the pathetic veneer of 'Christianity'. It is not the Gospel. It is an infertile, barren humanism. When people finally get bored of that, they quit going to Mass altogether, and we can clearly see that happening.

In the Catholic Church, before the Second Vatican Council, although I wasn't there to see it, I am of the opinion that there was the religious ritual which was the Mass, with the attendant masses, but their hearts were, if I may be so bold, far from God. Hence the massive exodus from the Church, as you said when it became socially acceptable not to go, they stop going and get on with their lives free of the sham and shackles of religion.

The sad thing is, today, we have the situation where the ritual is almost totally banal, ignoring so much of the proscribed words and actions of the Mass, in favour of a casual approach (to go with the 'Christian' humanism, of course). The result of that is a further emptying of the churches.

2. In the Catholic context, it is typically priests (and lay movements, as well as individuals, often labelled as cranks) which are rejected by their own fellow Christians. Good, orthodox and holy priests are marginalised and banished from parishes, sent off to quiet parishes where they can do no real harm (read: preaching the true Gospel). That must not happen. We must not upset the status quo - the pathetic humanistic religion project. The show must go on.

It won't go on forever though. One high ranking prelate in the Vatican predicted that in 20 years, the New Mass will have died out. In Ireland, I see the future of the Church as comprising small communities of faithful who gather together around the Latin Mass, offering true and fitting worship of God according to the authentic Tradition of the Church. Meanwhile, the rest of what was the Catholic Church will have gone into schism; excommunicated officially, they will keep on going with the pathetic 'Christian' humanism project, with their clown and puppet Masses, and they will retain ownership of the schools and most of the church buildings, in much the same way as the Church of England is now doing in England. Virtually spiritually dead, yet still possessing a handsome property and heritage portfolio. I hope any Anglicans will forgive my frank diagnosis and generalisation. You'll notice that I've been equally frank about my own Church.

Donatello

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

No, I think you are wrong. It is not just boring services the young in the United Kingdom are rejecting, it is religion as a whole. Thanks to education, secularism, and better channels of communication, the majority of the young realise that the Christian god is just one of thousands of unprovable deities that have been created by human imagination throughout history.

A very telling statistic is that over half of all Londoners who attend church services are Black Africans, yet they make up less than a fifth of London's total population. Religion in Britain is just about surviving through the traditions of immigrants, otherwise it would be even more of a dead duck.

Even if they have rejected religion, and seemingly God Himself, they do not appear to be very happy for it. The UK has massive rates of drug use, alcoholism, teenage pregnancies, and Ireland has its own problems, with a high suicide rate. Atheism and aggressive secularism don't seem to produce happy, balanced people, but rather people who are subject to despair. Authentic religion forms happy people. If we saw more of that, there would be less of those problems I've mentioned.

Onesimus

Just take a look at the title of the program itself and one can realise that it is a freemasonry job designed to hinder people from Joining the Catholic faith than help it. Ann took the bait.

If I were Catholic I wouldnt accept such an invitation to such a secular program designed to harm rather than help Christianity. A program designed to say to people ''Christianity is old hat, and doesnt have a future, so dont bother signing up.''

Onesimus

Keylem

Luke 18:18 "However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

paulaa

I hope you don't mind if I post this here, I wasn't sure where to put it. I found it on another site.

Please spare a thought for the Christians of Palestine this Easter. For the last 10 years or so only a small number of the original and oldest Christian community in the world are allowed to enter Jerusalem to attend ceremonies at the Holy sites.

Below is a statement from Kairos,an organisation of all Christian groups in Palestinian Occupied Territories including Copts, Catholic, Orthodox, Maronite and Luthern and Anglican.



http://www.kairospalestine.ps/sites/default/Documents/Kairos%20position%20on%20Holy%20week.pdf

Zombrex

"Young people" (which seems to extend to people in their 60s these days) have already rejected authentic Christianity, that is why the wishy washy stuff exists in the first place, to try and stem the tide because most of the religions realize that the hardcore stuff is even less appealing to the modern world.

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Even if they have rejected religion, and seemingly God Himself, they do not appear to be very happy for it. The UK has massive rates of drug use, alcoholism, teenage pregnancies, and Ireland has its own problems, with a high suicide rate. Atheism and aggressive secularism don't seem to produce happy, balanced people, but rather people who are subject to despair.

Those are all problems that are consistently worse in Western countries where religious affiliation is higher.

Not to suggest correlation equals causation (it is more likely that religion is more popular in poorer areas where these problems are also more common), but there seems to be little to suggest religion keeps these problems at bay.

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

"Young people" (which seems to extend to people in their 60s these days) have already rejected authentic Christianity, that is why the wishy washy stuff exists in the first place, to try and stem the tide because most of the religions realize that the hardcore stuff is even less appealing to the modern world.

Wishy washy stuff is a lame attempt to stand on two stools - the world and the Church. It's a case of trying to have your cake and eat it. The hippies in the Church (especially priests, dissident theologians, and even bishops) in the 1960s thought that the Church was about to change Her teachings on sex, so they could have the best of everything. They propagated these teachings in the hope that the Church would 'catch up' with their ideas. They have largely been in charge of the Church in Ireland ever since, although their influence is slowly waning.

Where the Gospel is proclaimed in its fullness, people are either converted or they walk away. The mistake that has been made in the RCC is that the leadership has measured the success of the Church's mission according to the number of bums on seats. The more, the better. The more bums on seats, the more money each week. The strategy is to offer an easy 'Gospel' (humanism) which affirms the goodness of each person and affirms them in their life just as they are, with no need of repentance, conversion, amendment of life etc... This is why in most RCC churches in Ireland, there is no mention of heaven, hell, or sin. It is an easy belief system - there is no supernatural, there is just a vague notion of 'niceness'. Being nice. That is what is important. If you are nice enough, you get to heaven. Most people are 'nice'. That's works salvation! The Church does not teach this, but it is the usual offering in so many Catholic parishes in Ireland.

In my experience, young people embrace the challenge of the Gospel when it is offered. Take a look at the work of Youth 2000 for instance.

It is precisely liberal, humanistic pseudo-Christianity, and it's Catholic variety, 'Catholic Lite', which repels people once they get bored. With a belief system like that, you don't need to go to Mass. Just be nice. If the priests now began to teach the true faith, many people would leave, taking their money with them.

The lukewarmness is gravely damaging to the mission of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Only when the faith is proclaimed and lived authentically will things pick up.

Keylem

Donatello wrote: »

Wishy washy stuff is a lame attempt to stand on two stools - the world and the Church. It's a case of trying to have your cake and eat it. The hippies in the Church (especially priests, dissident theologians, and even bishops) in the 1960s thought that the Church was about to change Her teachings on sex, so they could have the best of everything. They propagated these teachings in the hope that the Church would 'catch up' with their ideas. They have largely been in charge of the Church in Ireland ever since, although their influence is slowly waning.

Where the Gospel is proclaimed in its fullness, people are either converted or they walk away. The mistake that has been made in the RCC is that the leadership has measured the success of the Church's mission according to the number of bums on seats. The more, the better. The more bums on seats, the more money each week. The strategy is to offer an easy 'Gospel' (humanism) which affirms the goodness of each person and affirms them in their life just as they are, with no need of repentance, conversion, amendment of life etc... This is why in most RCC churches in Ireland, there is no mention of heaven, hell, or sin. It is an easy belief system - there is no supernatural, there is just a vague notion of 'niceness'. Being nice. That is what is important. If you are nice enough, you get to heaven. Most people are 'nice'. That's works salvation! The Church does not teach this, but it is the usual offering in so many Catholic parishes in Ireland.

In my experience, young people embrace the challenge of the Gospel when it is offered. Take a look at the work of Youth 2000 for instance.

It is precisely liberal, humanistic pseudo-Christianity, and it's Catholic variety, 'Catholic Lite', which repels people once they get bored. With a belief system like that, you don't need to go to Mass. Just be nice. If the priests now began to teach the true faith, many people would leave, taking their money with them.

The lukewarmness is gravely damaging to the mission of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Only when the faith is proclaimed and lived authentically will things pick up.

We need to bring back the 'Brimstone and Fire' Clergy!

Donatello

Keylem wrote: »

We need to bring back the 'Brimstone and Fire' Clergy!

With a good dose of Divine Mercy to go with it! If the error of the past was justice of God without mercy, we've now gone the other way, with fluffy 'luv', but no justice of God. What is offered now is not, in fact, love, or charity, but false compassion, which condones sin. This is intolerably cruel, because it fools sinners into a false sense of security, whereby they are led to believe God doesn't mind about sin.

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

In my experience, young people embrace the challenge of the Gospel when it is offered. Take a look at the work of Youth 2000 for instance.

Do they do this in numbers of any significance? I mean how many people attend Youth 2000 courses, compared to the droves that leave the Catholic church each year?

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

Do they do this in numbers of any significance? I mean how many people attend Youth 2000 courses, compared to the droves that leave the Catholic church each year?

It's not about numbers. Yes it would be nice if the entire population of Ireland were burning with apostolic zeal, but is that realistic? The seed is sown and what grows, grows. But the Gospel must be proclaimed so that people have a real choice.

Fanny Cradock

It was a lightweight programme, I thought.

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

It's not about numbers.

Well it kinda is if you are talking about Christianity having a future. Unless you would be happy with 5 guys held up in the Vatican being the only Christians left.

Keylem

Christianity began to spread from just 12 Apostles, ya never know, it may take off again from a small remnant!

partyatmygaff

The numbers of Christians may be declining slightly in the "Western World" but it it is growing in the rest of the world at a ratio of about three entering the faith for each one leaving the faith.

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

Christianity began to spread from just 12 Apostles, ya never know, it may take off again from a small remnant!

Maybe. Think they will have to come up with something a bit better this time though :P

Keylem

Wicknight wrote: »

Maybe. Think they will have to come up with something a bit better this time though :P

A different strategy perhaps!

lmaopml

OP, it doesn't surprise me really that there are 'programs' on BBC or any other news outlet saying 'Shock and horror - 'Christianity' believe it or not is in decline..', it's really boring at this stage, listening to the media telling people what they think..

I agree that being 'religious' may be polarising to a certain extent in the Western world, but the death nell is over excitedly and very boringly early - especially from those who like to sweep the barrell of swill in order to make a name for themselves - guaranteed a handful! Yawns..

Donatello, the Catholic church is there for everybody, especially those who question, are doubtful, have a problem etc. etc. with it, are angry, resentful, full up to the brim with sin, or are just visiting with a twinkle of curiosity - it's not a 'saints' only club - I'm sorry, but I disagree entirely with how you portray our 'mass'. While I may agree with some of the finer details and back to basics that you regularly post about - I think it misses by a long mile the whole 'point' sometimes. Sorry.

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

A different strategy perhaps!

They should try video tape instead of a book

Keylem

Would be cool!

homer911

I thought the program took a very light-weight scatter gun approach to the subject - a very low budget (apart from the ridiculous graphics) and ill-reseached piece

A lot of promise but poor delivery - hopefully not a parallel to the christian experience for anyone

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

"Young people" (which seems to extend to people in their 60s these days) have already rejected authentic Christianity, that is why the wishy washy stuff exists in the first place, to try and stem the tide because most of the religions realize that the hardcore stuff is even less appealing to the modern world.

And yet the evidence points in the opposite direction. The churches that are growing, and attracting young people, are those which are the most hardcore.

For example, in England (where the documentary was apparently focussing) I know of three initiatives that are attracting younger people by the tens of thousands. These are the 24/7 Prayer Movement, Alpha Courses, and Soul Survivor Worship events. All of these are either rooted in, and have strong links with, the Church of England. They are all culturally modern and innovative, yet doctrinally conservative in their view of Scripture. Meanwhile the churches with aging trendy vicars who water down the Gospel by denying key doctrines are empty shells.

Also, in the UK Pentecostalism is growing very rapidly among young people both immigrant (new churches like Matthew Ashimowolo's Kingsway Centre with over 15,000 members) and indigenous white British (like Hillsongs London that has thousands of young people who gather in Starbucks cafes to discuss the Bible together).

What is happening in the UK, as in Ireland, is that the numbers of nominal believers who attended traditional established churches are falling away (thank God!) but that the numbers of people who are fervent about their Christianity are increasing. So a luke-warm State-sponsored form of religion is being replaced by a numerically smaller more fervent style of religion that sees itself as much more counter-cultural.

We live in interesting, and exciting, times!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The churches that are growing, and attracting young people, are those which are the most hardcore. For example, in England (where the documentary was apparently focussing) I know of three initiatives that are attracting younger people by the tens of thousands. These are the 24/7 Prayer Movement, Alpha Courses, and Soul Survivor Worship events

None of those are churches, they are events. Are you basing the "growing" on attendance figures of these events? Because even Christians point out that popularity of these course don't seem to be translating into actual longer term church attendance.

If your point is that conservatives seem to run better summer camps, I'm not going to bother disputing that.

PDN wrote: »

What is happening in the UK, as in Ireland, is that the numbers of nominal believers who attended traditional established churches are falling away (thank God!) but that the numbers of people who are fervent about their Christianity are increasing. So a luke-warm State-sponsored form of religion is being replaced by a numerically smaller more fervent style of religion that sees itself as much more counter-cultural.

Which is the issue isn't it? I mean what significance does Christianity have it it ends up a bunch of small fundamentalist cults? Groups like the Alpha course have already got into a lot of trouble for deploying cult like manipulation techniques. If you end up with a ton of fringe groups that maintain numbers of, shall we say people of emotional or mental concern (ie those more likely to fall for such manipulation) through these methods is that what mainstream Christians really want?

partyatmygaff

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is the issue isn't it? I mean what significance does Christianity have it it ends up a bunch of small fundamentalist cults?

It won't.

Zombrex

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It won't.

Well then, if you say so, I won't worry

Donatello

lmaopml wrote: »

OP, it doesn't surprise me really that there are 'programs' on BBC or any other news outlet saying 'Shock and horror - 'Christianity' believe it or not is in decline..', it's really boring at this stage, listening to the media telling people what they think..

I agree that being 'religious' may be polarising to a certain extent in the Western world, but the death nell is over excitedly and very boringly early - especially from those who like to sweep the barrell of swill in order to make a name for themselves - guaranteed a handful! Yawns..

Donatello, the Catholic church is there for everybody, especially those who question, are doubtful, have a problem etc. etc. with it, are angry, resentful, full up to the brim with sin, or are just visiting with a twinkle of curiosity - it's not a 'saints' only club - I'm sorry, but I disagree entirely with how you portray our 'mass'. While I may agree with some of the finer details and back to basics that you regularly post about - I think it misses by a long mile the whole 'point' sometimes. Sorry.

That is not what I propose. My thesis is that presently, everybody is in the Church. That's great. The only problem is, the fullness of the Gospel is not proclaimed to this everybody. Therefore, the Church is still reasonably full, but it is full of people who have never received the Gospel. Sure, they 'hear' the readings each Sunday, but they do not understand the Gospel, its implications, what it means for their lives, but they are not converted, they have not been moved. It is the priest's job to preach the Gospel so that souls will be moved to repentance out of love of God and sorrow for their sins.

I believe presently that the sheep (those who have received the Gospel and attend Mass) are being sacrificed for the goats (those who still come to Mass but have not received the Gospel, in large part because it has not been offered). This way, everybody suffers: the sheep are not fed, they get frustrated, angry, their spiritual growth is stunted, whilst the goats are deprived the Gospel which can lead to their salvation. They continue with their lives as they are, unreformed, unrepentant, because the priests won't guide them. This is a very cruel situation.

I do not propose a cult for the elite few. What I propose is that everybody, without exception, is given an opportunity to hear the fullness of the Gospel, not some watered down, wishy washy 'Catholic Lite' version as is happening in most parishes in Ireland. That's cruel and not at all what Jesus wants. He wants His Gospel proclaimed to everybody. For priests to keep silent and deny their people the Gospel is cruel, even if they do this out of a mistaken false compassion or desire not to 'offend anybody'.

I hope you now understand my position clearly.

Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, once said:

"A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good, so that they are secured in their sinful state, betrays the gospels call...A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens - as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper - that is the preaching of Christ, calling: Wake up! Be converted! That is the Church's authentic preaching."

What's happening in your parish? I know what's not happening in mine.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is the issue isn't it? I mean what significance does Christianity have it it ends up a bunch of small fundamentalist cults?

The same significance it always had. It's always consisted of relatively small numbers - once you strip out the cultural Christianity.

Wilderness (large). Voice in the (small).

I wouldn't worry about the fact that those small numbers divide into denominations if you won't .

Groups like the Alpha course have already got into a lot of trouble for deploying cult like manipulation techniques.

In trouble with who precisely?

(I've been on one btw. You watch a video, have a cup of tea, discuss the content of the video in small groups then go home.)

If you end up with a ton of fringe groups that maintain numbers of, shall we say people of emotional or mental concern (ie those more likely to fall for such manipulation) through these methods is that what mainstream Christians really want?

Leaving aside you're rather dodgy labelling, I'm wondering what you understand by mainstream Christianity - if it isn't the State-sponsored type the like of which PDN seems to be thankful to see the back of.

Donatello

I wasn't impressed with the programme. I thought it was disjointed and I was also disappointed that they did not look at the young people who flock to Walsingham for the Youth 2000 annual retreat, nor any of the Traditional Masses which attract young people also.

I tuned out and spent more of my time faffing around on the laptop than paying too much attention to the programme.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

In trouble with who precisely?

Everyone, skeptics, atheists, Christians, Channel 4. Heck there was even an article in the Daily Mail was some what critical about about them after Geri Hallewell claimed to have converted to Christianity because of one of them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

(I've been on one btw. You watch a video, have a cup of tea, discuss the content of the video in small groups then go home.)

I must go to one. Assuming they don't kick me out for asking inappropriate questions :pac:

http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2008/06/robert-stovold-on-alpha-course-turning.html

antiskeptic wrote: »

Leaving aside you're rather dodgy labelling, I'm wondering what you understand by mainstream Christianity

People who, by and large, do not subscribe to Christianity due to any abnormal mental or emotional issue, such as depression, loneliness or isolation, aggression or anger, etc. Because of these issues it is very easy to manipulate someone into subscribing to a religion or belief system (not just Christianity, anything). But because not everyone suffers from them to the degree necessary it is much harder to spread such techniques out to such a wide range that it becomes mainstream. For example Scientology has never become mainstream, it has an inbuilt limiting factor that the techniques used to gain new members will only work on a particular segment of the population.

antiskeptic wrote: »

- if it isn't the State-sponsored type the like of which PDN seems to be thankful to see the back of.

It doesn't really have much to do with whether anything is State sponsored. If Christianity is pushed by things like Alpha courses to the fringes then only people on the fringes of society will end up being members.

These seems to hold some what of a romantic notion for some Christians, which I think is rather naive. It is not that difficult to make someone with emotional or mental issues believe what ever the heck you want with something like an Alpha course.

But like any fringe religious movement this will be inherently unstable and volatile. I'm not sure either non-Christians or Christians want that.

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

People who, by and large, do not subscribe to Christianity due to any abnormal mental or emotional issue, such as depression, loneliness or isolation, aggression or anger, etc. Because of these issues it is very easy to manipulate someone into subscribing to a religion or belief system

[...]

It doesn't really have much to do with whether anything is State sponsored. If Christianity is pushed by things like Alpha courses to the fringes then only people on the fringes of society will end up being members.

[...]

But like any fringe religious movement this will be inherently unstable and volatile. I'm not sure either non-Christians or Christians want that.

Some fella crying in the corner is hardly a threat to national security, is he?

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Some fella crying in the corner is hardly a threat to national security, is he?

No (national security??) but he might be a threat to the stability of the Christian religion if most of the members left are "crying in the corner".

Religious groups based on these sort of practices, attracting these sort of people, tend to be far more unstable and transitory than mainstream religious groups.

Fanny Cradock

I really am disappointed to see Steven Carr's name being mentioned. Any dealings I've personally had with him over the years have been utterly devoid of worth because he hasn't the slightest interest in listening to the opinions of others if they don't happen to agree with him.

As far as I can determine, he has been doing the whole "angry atheist on the internet" thing over the last decade or so largely for one reason - to bait Christians.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I really am disappointed to see Steven Carr's name being mentioned. Any dealings I've personally had with him over the years have been utterly devoid of worth because he hasn't the slightest interest in listening to the opinions of others if they don't happen to agree with him.

As far as I can determine, he has been doing the whole "angry atheist on the internet" thing over the last decade or so largely for one reason - to bait Christians.

Well luckily you didn't fall for that bait :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well luckily you didn't fall for that bait :pac:

Oh, but I did! I've only been in the troll detection game for a few years, whereas he has had nearly 15 years to hone his skills.

He sets up threads that are so deliciously outrageous that it is almost impossible to resist replying. They all pivot on the same format of begging a ridiculously outlandish question.

He might actually be a fairly effective atheist apologist (the sort of guy who throws the red meet to the willing mouths) if he wasn't so blinded and so terribly disingenuous. You can actually listen to one of his debates on the Unbelievable website. Carr is... eh... an interesting person.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Everyone, skeptics, atheists, Christians, Channel 4. Heck there was even an article in the Daily Mail was some what critical about about them after Geri Hallewell claimed to have converted to Christianity because of one of them.

Ah okay. I thought you meant trouble of a sustantive kind. That skeptics/atheists, a liberal TV station and a tabloid newspaper have a problem with some or other aspect of Christianity strikes me as somewhat predictable.

Also, that some Christians find the Alpha course problematic should come as no surprise since you'll always find some Christians who'll view the activities of other Christians as problematic.

I must go to one. Assuming they don't kick me out for asking inappropriate questions :pac:

http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2008/06/robert-stovold-on-alpha-course-turning.html

If you went in that spirit then you'd not really be acting fairly to those who come for the reasons the course is set up - to permit people to investigate what it is is Christianity is about.

Kicking out folk who act contra that spirit strikes me as fair enough. A bit like removing unruly pupils from the schoolroom for the benefit of the rest.

People who, by and large, do not subscribe to Christianity due to any abnormal mental or emotional issue, such as depression, loneliness or isolation, aggression or anger, etc. Because of these issues it is very easy to manipulate someone into subscribing to a religion or belief system (not just Christianity, anything). But because not everyone suffers from them to the degree necessary it is much harder to spread such techniques out to such a wide range that it becomes mainstream. For example Scientology has never become mainstream, it has an inbuilt limiting factor that the techniques used to gain new members will only work on a particular segment of the population.

I think you'll find that most prepared to stand up and give a reason for the hope that they have will speak of encountering some or other personal crisis in which a turning to God proved the only option. They wouldn't see anything abnormal in that since trouble and strife follow sin and sin is a lever utilised by God in the conversion of people.

The best the rest appear to be able to say is that they're Christians because their parents were Christians. If plumping for these folk as "mainstream" then you might well be barking up a cultural Christianity tree.

You'll need to be a little bit more specific to gain traction for your cult suggestion (which appears so far to rest on assuming Christianity not true)

It doesn't really have much to do with whether anything is State sponsored. If Christianity is pushed by things like Alpha courses to the fringes then only people on the fringes of society will end up being members.

If it has nothing to do with state religion (RC here, Church of England in the UK) then what is the fringe the fringe of?

It is not that difficult to make someone with emotional or mental issues believe what ever the heck you want with something like an Alpha course. But like any fringe religious movement this will be inherently unstable and volatile. I'm not sure either non-Christians or Christians want that.

You need to firm up the foundations of your cult claim. If the Alpha course isn't using classic cult-techniques then I can't see how it is it can be labelled so. The fact that very many converted (whether via Alpha or otherwise) testify to personal crisis isn't sufficient in itself.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ah okay. I thought you meant trouble of a sustantive kind. That skeptics/atheists, a liberal TV station and a tabloid newspaper have a problem with some or other aspect of Christianity strikes me as somewhat predictable.

It isn't the Christianity bit people (including Christians) take issue with the Alpha Courses, it is the manipulation bits.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Also, that some Christians find the Alpha course problematic should come as no surprise since you'll always find some Christians who'll view the activities of other Christians as problematic.

I didn't say it was a surprise, you seem to be the only one unaware of this

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you went in that spirit then you'd not really be acting fairly to those who come for the reasons the course is set up - to permit people to investigate what it is is Christianity is about.

The Alpha courses bills themselves for atheists and skeptics. If it isn't interested in that it shouldn't bill itself as this. It seems to just do that under the guise that it has nothing to fear from skeptical probing, which is apparently not the case.

antiskeptic wrote: »

They wouldn't see anything abnormal in that since trouble and strife follow sin and sin is a lever utilised by God in the conversion of people.

Whether they see it as abnormal is irrelevant. It is abnormal if it doesn't happen to most people. For example drug addiction. Or severe mental depression.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The best the rest appear to be able to say is that they're Christians because their parents were Christians. If plumping for these folk as "mainstream" then you might well be barking up a cultural Christianity tree.

That is some what missing the point. Desperate people are far easier to manipulate. Mainstream people aren't.

Therefore successes in mainstream are less likely to be due to manipulation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'll need to be a little bit more specific to gain traction for your cult suggestion (which appears so far to rest on assuming Christianity not true)

Whether Christianity is true or not is irrelevant to whether someone can use certain emotional and mental techniques to convince someone it is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If it has nothing to do with state religion (RC here, Church of England in the UK) then what is the fringe the fringe of?

Mental and emotional normality.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You need to firm up the foundations of your cult claim. If the Alpha course isn't using classic cult-techniques then I can't see how it is it can be labelled so.

It is using classic cult-techniques, that is the point. Saying it is ok they do this because Christianity is true is some what missing the point.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't the Christianity bit people (including Christians) take issue with the Alpha Courses, it is the manipulation bits.

Which manipulation bits?

The Alpha courses bills themselves for atheists and skeptics. If it isn't interested in that it shouldn't bill itself as this. It seems to just do that under the guise that it has nothing to fear from skeptical probing, which is apparently not the case.

Could I see this billing - bearing in mind my comment about the spirit of Alpha being an exploration of the Christian message. It is not billed as a religion vs atheist apologetics discussion forum.

Whether they see it as abnormal is irrelevant. It is abnormal if it doesn't happen to most people. For example drug addiction. Or severe mental depression.

or sickness, or unemployment, or the death of a loved one, or severe pain or a whole list of ailments.

Suffering one or more such ailments isn't at all abnormal in a life.

That is some what missing the point. Desperate people are far easier to manipulate. Mainstream people aren't.

Therefore successes in mainstream are less likely to be due to manipulation.

See my point above re: ailment being 'mainstream'.

Whether Christianity is true or not is irrelevant to whether someone can use certain emotional and mental techniques to convince someone it is.

And I'm awaiting some insight into these 'techniques'. How it is they conform to cultish practices. Remember: a video, tea & biscuits, a half hour discussion, home.

Mental and emotional normality.

See previous point.

It is using classic cult-techniques, that is the point. Saying it is ok they do this because Christianity is true is some what missing the point.

As above, elaboration into these techniques required.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which manipulation bits?

Good summary here of the experiences of sceptics on the courses (ie people who would recognize the techniques being used)

http://maxdunbar.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/the-omega-course/

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could I see this billing - bearing in mind my comment about the spirit of Alpha being an exploration of the Christian message. It is not billed as a religion vs atheist apologetics discussion forum.

http://uk.alpha.org/type/alpha

Apparently you can "bring all the questions and things that annoy you about anything to do with Christianity or religion to Alpha"

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suffering one or more such ailments isn't at all abnormal in a life.

I didn't claim it was. That is your list.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And I'm awaiting some insight into these 'techniques'. How it is they conform to cultish practices. Remember: a video, tea & biscuits, a half hour discussion, home.

That is not an Alpha Course. See link above.

Out of curiosity, do you think you would be able to identify manipulation techniques in the first place?

lmaopml

Donatello wrote: »

That is not what I propose. My thesis is that presently, everybody is in the Church. That's great. The only problem is, the fullness of the Gospel is not proclaimed to this everybody. Therefore, the Church is still reasonably full, but it is full of people who have never received the Gospel. Sure, they 'hear' the readings each Sunday, but they do not understand the Gospel, its implications, what it means for their lives, but they are not converted, they have not been moved. It is the priest's job to preach the Gospel so that souls will be moved to repentance out of love of God and sorrow for their sins.

I believe presently that the sheep (those who have received the Gospel and attend Mass) are being sacrificed for the goats (those who still come to Mass but have not received the Gospel, in large part because it has not been offered). This way, everybody suffers: the sheep are not fed, they get frustrated, angry, their spiritual growth is stunted, whilst the goats are deprived the Gospel which can lead to their salvation. They continue with their lives as they are, unreformed, unrepentant, because the priests won't guide them. This is a very cruel situation.

Ok Donatello, perhaps I was a little harsh in my judgement - I do understand where you are coming from entirely, and can understand your concern, which I believe is 'genuine' too.

However, sometimes I think you are a little too harsh on the priests and also on the 'goats'. You see, I think there is a place where the priests job begins and ends, and where the person of faiths job starts to persue a greater understanding and strengthening of faith - the priest can't bang doors down - and I for one am glad that the Church swayed somewhat away from concentrating at the pulpit on the 'bad news' instead of concentrating on the 'good news' - perhaps the scales haven't quite levelled out yet? In fairness, the priest of the parish can organise Sunday schools, bible studies, retreats etc. etc. but it's up to people to avail of those things too. I think there is a reason for everything, I'm trusting God on this one..

I do not propose a cult for the elite few. What I propose is that everybody, without exception, is given an opportunity to hear the fullness of the Gospel, not some watered down, wishy washy 'Catholic Lite' version as is happening in most parishes in Ireland. That's cruel and not at all what Jesus wants. He wants His Gospel proclaimed to everybody. For priests to keep silent and deny their people the Gospel is cruel, even if they do this out of a mistaken false compassion or desire not to 'offend anybody'.

Yes, the idea of a 'core' perfectly practicing Catholic faithful actually frightens me a little tbh - nothing like a few really good sinners among the crowd to hear the Gospels too, people who struggle and work on things....preferably lots of both all the time.

I don't really entirely understand what you mean by a 'Catholic Lite' version of the Gospel or Mass? The Gospels are read out loud on a micraphone for all to hear at every single mass - the priest follows that up with a short explanation - and then we have the Eucharist - this happens everywhere in all parishes that call themselves Catholic surely?

I hope you now understand my position clearly.

Yeah, maybe a little better but with some reservations..lol....I'm not into changing the Catholic church to allow female priests or any such nonsense, or on board with any particular lefty agenda for overhaul of age old doctrine on the sanctity of life and marriage etc. etc. etc. However, I have been known to fall very short of all that the church recognises as being the most pure and perfect life ( I haven't murdered anybody now..) - and I'm glad that she won't close her doors anytime soon on me or anybody like me....or that others in the flock would ever dream of denying my 'Catholic' identity to me - It would always be 'my' peace to make iykwim, mine and the confession box. I think there are a lot of people like that out there too...

What's happening in your parish? I know what's not happening in mine.

What?

Anyway, rambling now. Thanks Donatello for explaining.