Does Christianity have a future? BBC1 10.25pm

ironingbored

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010n3qr

Dave!

I absofúckinglutely HATE Ann Widdecombe... Cannot possibly watch her

Funnily enough just watched an episode of Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe where he takes the píss out of her a bit :pac:

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

just watched an episode of Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe where he takes the píss out of her a bit :pac:

New series? If so, cool!

Dave!

robindch wrote: »

New series? If so, cool!

Nah, it's from series 4, he was just talking about a show in which she 'researches' prostitution... Basically chastising people.

pH

Well to summarise, for those for whom an hour of Widdecombe is just too much:

You really should believe in Christianity and go to church - Catholicism is best if you could manage it, if not you might try something else with Jesus.

The future of Christianity is :

• Immigrants
• Happy Clappy Pentecostal churches
• Young people (if they weren't so obsessed with their iPods, and would only pull their pants up and get back to church) - they're *not* like their parents who hated/rejected Christianity, this lot haven't even really heard about it.

Other points covered:

Homosexuality is still wrong (we love them though)

And very strangely (and yes I'm being sarcastic) other religions aren't even mentioned - there's a straight choice, you're Christian or atheist.

Dave!

Fair play pH, took one for the team there... Now go wash your eyes and ears out with soap.

Nodin

Dave! wrote: »

I absofúckinglutely HATE Ann Widdecombe... Cannot possibly watch her

Funnily enough just watched an episode of Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe where he takes the píss out of her a bit :pac:

t'would appear somebody else does too, as the whole Beeb site seems to be down.

Penn

Terrible program. Interviewed two people who disagree with her, and about 7 young people who don't really care.

Then there was a bit where some guy takes a bunch of teens to a curry house for meals, then tells them Bible stories but modernised to include surfers etc, and not mentioning God or Religion and letting them draw their own conclusions. (aka Tricking them into believing in God)

She also said that atheists opinions are not as valid as Christians, until the guy she was talking to asked her to clarify if she meant in general or spiritually, and she kinda half-heartedly nodded to spiritually.

Then at the beginning of the programme, she was saying how lots of small churches are closing down. Then at the end, mentions how attendance at Cathedral masses are increasing, yet no-one can really explain why.

Oohhh ooohh (raises hand) Miss! Miss! I know! I know! Is it because the people who did still go to the smaller churches now have to go elsewhere? I mean, I know you probably doubt evolution, but 2+2 does still equal 4, doesn't it?

Horribly presented. Horribly edited (constantly showing young people texting or with low jeans when talking about them as if they represent everyone). Horribly biased (fair enough, she's Christian. But the programme is "Does Christianity have a future?", not "How is Christianity going to survive?")

Penn

Some clips available here. Haven't watched these clips myself so don't know which bits are included, but you'll get the general gist I reckon.

Galvasean

They should have shown that Intelligence Squared debate where she and another got annihilated by Hitchens and Fry. Or better yet shown her dancing on ice.

Penn

Galvasean wrote: »

They should have shown that Intelligence Squared debate where she and another got annihilated by Hitchens and Fry.

Link? Haven't heard of that one.

CiaranMT

Barrington wrote: »

Link? Haven't heard of that one.

Here's the first part, you'll find the rest in the links at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh7G87m4

CiaranMT

RE the show, watching the clip posted by Barrington.

Widdecombe attempts to challenge Johann Hari and Rev Stvens and gets shown up on both occasions. Especially so by the Rev, who, when questioned about the seemingly large influence the CoE has on ethics, he points out that they have just 4% of the representation in the House of Lords.

rightyabe

Yeah the "curry house religion" I think this is a perfect example of morals without religion, the priest was talking about surfing etc and teaching the teenagers moarls and not talking about god.

Does this not prove that religion is not needed to have morals? so he's basically doing himself out of a job in a small way.


Overall I thought it was s**t, Christanity will have to change so much in the future that it may as well dissolve completly. In my opinion.

philologos

Barrington wrote: »

Terrible program. Interviewed two people who disagree with her, and about 7 young people who don't really care.

It wasn't a well produced program, but I'm led to believe that she is right. I'm basing this on anecdotal evidence in Ireland and Britain from serving in both countries for a period of time in a Christian context. The problem isn't with the Gospel as Johann Hari seems to suggest (indeed he didn't come across as if he knew much more than a caricature of this).

The simple fact of the matter is churches are growing in both Britain and Ireland, indeed and para-church missions are also working effectively both in Britain and Ireland. I haven't a doubt that Christianity will survive in both.

The example I'm most familiar since I am involved with it directly is the Christian Union movement at universities and IT's in Ireland (these groups are working in the vast majority of universities and IT's and there has been a huge growth in recent decades), and indeed the movement in Britain and 150 other countries worldwide. More and more people are seeking answers, and more and more people are beginning a life-long relationship with Jesus Christ in Britain and Ireland. Others are falling off and that is natural. I thank the new-atheists for giving us an opportunity to communicate the Gospel.

Barrington wrote: »

Then there was a bit where some guy takes a bunch of teens to a curry house for meals, then tells them Bible stories but modernised to include surfers etc, and not mentioning God or Religion and letting them draw their own conclusions. (aka Tricking them into believing in God)

I don't think it is the best approach. I think people should be overt about Jesus and I'm not sure that this approach will bring people to Christ. However, I know for a fact that other approaches will, have and do work. I've seen them work.

Barrington wrote: »

She also said that atheists opinions are not as valid as Christians, until the guy she was talking to asked her to clarify if she meant in general or spiritually, and she kinda half-heartedly nodded to spiritually.

In fairness, I don't believe atheist positions are valid either in that I believe they are utterly false. I'm open to discussion and I am open to reason in respect to them.

Barrington wrote: »

Then at the beginning of the programme, she was saying how lots of small churches are closing down. Then at the end, mentions how attendance at Cathedral masses are increasing, yet no-one can really explain why.

I think she's wrong. I think small churches are growing. No church should have to shut doors people should be bold and see it as an opportunity for evangelism. She brought up the example of a church that was re-opened in Brighton. The problem wasn't with the teachings of Jesus, or with Christianity, but with the approach that the church was previously taking.

Barrington wrote: »

Oohhh ooohh (raises hand) Miss! Miss! I know! I know! Is it because the people who did still go to the smaller churches now have to go elsewhere? I mean, I know you probably doubt evolution, but 2+2 does still equal 4, doesn't it?

I don't agree with you either. She had a valid point when she was speaking with the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is when the Gospel is diluted in churches that people start to wonder what is different there from what is in the world. Why would I go to church when I can go shopping if it doesn't give me opportunities both to grow as a disciple of Jesus, and two to serve Him in reaching others or in building the church itself, disciple others. As I will be making decisions about what to do with the rest of my life I will be finding a church that allows me to do these things in fullness just as I've had the opportunity to do so. Following Jesus doesn't mean just going to church, it means actively participating in church and in being an outward expression of Christ to non-believers. I don't believe that I am by far the best representation of this, but I can try and I can pray that God might be glorified. You could say I'm quite evangelical.

Barrington wrote: »

Horribly presented. Horribly edited (constantly showing young people texting or with low jeans when talking about them as if they represent everyone). Horribly biased (fair enough, she's Christian. But the programme is "Does Christianity have a future?", not "How is Christianity going to survive?")

The answer to the question is obvious if you just look around you. Perhaps I've had a good deal more insight into the workings of things in some ways, but I believe strongly that Christianity will be around for years and years to come and this is based on clear evidence.

Improbable

I hope that eventually, all religion dwindles down to what it should be. Something that people believe in the privacy of their own minds without making the rest of us suffer for it.

philologos

Improbable wrote: »

I hope that eventually, all religion dwindles down to what it should be. Something that people believe in the privacy of their own minds without making the rest of us suffer for it.

I don't see how you've suffered for my beliefs apart from the fact that you read my posts here :pac:

Improbable

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how you've suffered for my beliefs apart from the fact that you read my posts here :pac:

Anything that causes people to say "Sure, I don't care if it's a mystery, We'll just say god did it." instead of searching for real answers is harmful.

SirenX

I couldn't even sit through the clip that was posted by another member. omg that was the worst doc I've seen in a loooonnnngg time. I feel like punching her.

just because I think that believing in an imaginary friend for adults is totally idiotic and primative doesn't mean that christians opinions are any less or greater than mine. how ignorant to suggest that people who don't believe in Jesus Christ (whose story is continuously being repeated through the history of religion, see horrus, one of the many gods of egypt, had the exact same story, 12 deciples, born of a virgin, betrayed, died only to rise again in three days, yadda yadda yadda) doesn't make them second class citizens.





I apologise for my atrocious spelling

SirenX

n/m

Improbable

SirenX wrote: »

@Jakkass


why why why are you in the Athiest & Agnostic forum? you are clearly neither. you don't see me going on the the Christianity forum spouting my beliefs to people whom would most likely be offended so why come here?
clearly the churches are not growing. just look at the amount of people on this forum. you wouldn't find this many Athiests and Agnostics in Ireland 100 years ago.

Without religious people to debate with, this would be a more boring place. That's what's so great about A&A, we can all gather and debate and discuss.

SirenX

Improbable wrote: »

Without religious people to debate with, this would be a more boring place. That's what's so great about A&A, we can all gather and debate and discuss.

I didn't think of it that way, you totally right

CiaranMT

SirenX wrote: »

@Jakkass


why why why are you in the Athiest & Agnostic forum? you are clearly neither. you don't see me going on the the Christianity forum spouting my beliefs to people whom would most likely be offended so why come here?
clearly the churches are not growing. just look at the amount of people on this forum. you wouldn't find this many Athiests and Agnostics in Ireland 100 years ago.

Jakkass and other posters like him are a welcome addition in the forum, they provide a reasonable religious side to the debate which is needed.

SirenX

once again I didn't think of it that way, just a bit tired so am in a very narrow minded state of thinking at the moment

JimiTime

Improbable wrote: »

I hope that eventually, all religion dwindles down to what it should be. Something that people believe in the privacy of their own minds without making the rest of us suffer for it.

And while you indulge in the privacy of YOUR own mind, multitudes of Christians around the globe actively engage in trying to RELIEVE the suffering of people as a direct result of the Gospel of Jesus Christ turning their hearts from selfishness to selflessness.

Christendom, even in its hypocritical hierarchies, has not quenched the Gospel of Christ from among true believers. While some will seek to rewrite history to satisfy their own misled views about how religion brings nothing but badness, true Christians, even under the tyranny of their own religious leaders at times, still done and DO the very opposite of make people suffer. You can be guaranteed, that not only would this world be a darker place without the essence of Christ that has gone before, but there are a lot more Christians out there trying to ease suffering as you tippy tappy on your keyboard pontificating about how you suffer because some Christians don't just shrink back into their heads. When the day of Judgement arrives, there will be many shouts of 'Why weren't you MORE fervent with the Good News of the Kingdom'. So many of you render terms like 'suffering', 'child abuse', 'homophobe' etc so utterly meaningless in your quest to vilify.

Improbable

JimiTime wrote: »

And while you indulge in the privacy of YOUR own mind, multitudes of Christians around the globe actively engage in trying to RELIEVE the suffering of people as a direct result of the Gospel of Jesus Christ turning their hearts from selfishness to selflessness.

Christendom, even in its hypocritical hierarchies, has not quenched the Gospel of Christ from among true believers. While some will seek to rewrite history to satisfy their own misled views about how religion brings nothing but badness, true Christians, even under the tyranny of their own religious leaders at times, still done and DO the very opposite of make people suffer. You can be guaranteed, that not only would this world be a darker place without the essence of Christ that has gone before, but there are a lot more Christians out there trying to ease suffering as you tippy tappy on your keyboard pontificating about how you suffer because some Christians don't just shrink back into their heads. When the day of Judgement arrives, there will be many shouts of 'Why weren't you MORE fervent with the Good News of the Kingdom'. So many of you render terms like 'suffering', 'child abuse', 'homophobe' etc so utterly meaningless in your quest to vilify.

I do plenty to help people whenever I can, I just don't need the threat of eternal punishment to make me do it.

CiaranMT

JimiTime wrote: »

And while you indulge in the privacy of YOUR own mind, multitudes of Christians around the globe actively engage in trying to RELIEVE the suffering of people as a direct result of the Gospel of Jesus Christ turning their hearts from selfishness to selflessness.

You can keep your gospel, thanks. One doesn't need a Bible to realise that selflessness is a valued and rewarding practice.

Christendom, even in its hypocritical hierarchies, has not quenched the Gospel of Christ from among true believers. While some will seek to rewrite history to satisfy their own misled views about how religion brings nothing but badness, true Christians, even under the tyranny of their own religious leaders at times, still done and DO the very opposite of make people suffer. You can be guaranteed, that not only would this world be a darker place without the essence of Christ that has gone before, but there are a lot more Christians out there trying to ease suffering as you tippy tappy on your keyboard pontificating about how you suffer because some Christians don't just shrink back into their heads. When the day of Judgement arrives, there will be many shouts of 'Why weren't you MORE fervent with the Good News of the Kingdom'. So many of you render terms like 'suffering', 'child abuse', 'homophobe' etc so utterly meaningless in your quest to vilify.

I've no doubt there are Christians out trying to relieve suffering. I acknowledge that theirs is a noble endeavour in principle. However, I don't agree that providing solace by invoking a unknown, unknowable, morally ambivalent, self-contradictory deity as a panacaea to ones ills is useful.

JimiTime

Improbable wrote: »

I do plenty to help people whenever I can

Well you can be guaranteed, that there are a lot of Christians dedicating their lives for others as a direct result of the Good News of Jesus Christ that they received into their hearts. They become beacons for the light of Christ, and his love inspires more love. A by product of which is having a desire through love to ease suffering. So when you think of how you 'suffer' at the hands of Christians being public, just think of the amount of people, who motivated by Christ, dedicate their lives to ease ACTUAL suffering in the world.

, I just don't need the threat of eternal punishment to make me do it.

A common ignorance of motive espoused by anti-Christians.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well you can be guaranteed, that there are a lot of Christians dedicating their lives for others as a direct result of the Good News of Jesus Christ that they received into their hearts.

Yeah, you see the problem is the don't do it for that reason because your god doesn't exist and your religion isn't true (checks in the right forum, yes good).

So they do it for various psychological reasons, some noble some less noble, but all of which would still exist in world with little to no religion.

So these claims by yourself and others that we should be thankful for the existence of your religion have very little meaning to us.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah, you see the problem is the don't do it for that reason because your god doesn't exist and your religion isn't true (checks in the right forum, yes good).

So they do it for various psychological reasons, some noble some less noble, but all of which would still exist in world with little to no religion.

So these claims by yourself and others that we should be thankful for the existence of your religion have very little meaning to us.

Except that they ARE motivated by the Good News of Christ. Whether you believe he exists or not, they exhibit in action, this love which is a witness to the power of the message.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Except that they ARE motivated by the Good News of Christ. Whether you believe he exists or not, they exhibit in action, this love which is a witness to the power of the message.

.. if your religion is true. Otherwise they are simply doing good things because they think doing good things is good, and crediting Christianity because Christianity has told them that if they want to do good things it is because of God, the Good News, the "power of the message" etc etc

Again, atheist forum Jimi. The Christian BS don't get an automatic pass here.

Improbable

JimiTime wrote: »

Well you can be guaranteed, that there are a lot of Christians dedicating their lives for others as a direct result of the Good News of Jesus Christ that they received into their hearts. They become beacons for the light of Christ, and his love inspires more love. A by product of which is having a desire through love to ease suffering. So when you think of how you 'suffer' at the hands of Christians being public, just think of the amount of people, who motivated by Christ, dedicate their lives to ease ACTUAL suffering in the world.

I didn't say that there aren't christians who do good things. I didn't even say that there aren't christians who do good things because of what they believe about christianity. I just said christians should stop making the rest of us suffer. You're the one that came in guns a blazing to defend christianity against a point of view that I never espoused.

Unless of course your point is that good things are done by good christians and that the bad things done in the name of christianity aren't done by people who are real christians. In which case, all I have to say is that such an argument really is absolutely worthless. You might as well be saying "good people are good, and bad people are bad".

So if christ sent out his message and there have been however many christians throughout history. Do you think that the "good" that these "real" christians have done outweighs the evil atrocities committed by the other "bad" christians? Because they are after all drawing their motivation from the same figure.

JimiTime wrote: »

A common ignorance of motive espoused by anti-Christians.

Explain how.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

Well you can be guaranteed, that there are a lot of Christians dedicating their lives for others as a direct result of the Good News of Jesus Christ that they received into their hearts. They become beacons for the light of Christ, and his love inspires more love. A by product of which is having a desire through love to ease suffering. So when you think of how you 'suffer' at the hands of Christians being public, just think of the amount of people, who motivated by Christ, dedicate their lives to ease ACTUAL suffering in the world.

And yet when you scratch beneath the surface you find that these people are really just using their 'charitable' works to inflict their own world-view on others. Normally those in some form of trouble, who'd have thought that vulnerable people, be they homeless alcoholics in Dublin or the latest victims of a natural disaster would be susceptible to strings attached evangelism, aid in one hand, a new faith in the other.

It's been said before, but one of Christianity's great "Care givers", Mother Theresa, definitely wasn't about easing suffering, she was all about growing her order, spreading her conservative catholic world-view and offering up the suffering of the poor and sick to the glory of God.

philologos

Improbable wrote: »

Anything that causes people to say "Sure, I don't care if it's a mystery, We'll just say god did it." instead of searching for real answers is harmful.

This is the philosophical problem I guess. How can we ever know about such questions. One approach is existentialism which is one that atheism is prone to. We can't know anything about such things as meaning etc. Some forms of Christian philosophy nearly went down this path which is why Kierkegaard or Schleiermacher both of which I love were referred to as Christian existentialists.

However, despite how I feel about Kierkegaard or Schleiermacher I disagree with them. One can merely observe reality and see that it is more probable that God exists than not, and certainly more reasonable than not. The one area I have been convinced the most is in respect to the human operation of morality, and indeed another area would be the mere logic behind Creation.

If indeed a God exists, I don't think it is unreasonable to deduce that:
1) God would have a respect for His creation.
2) It would be possible for God to reveal Himself to mankind.

It is through a revelation that Christians can claim to have some form of knowledge about God.

If God doesn't exist there is no revelation and we're utterly deluded. I'm quite happy to accept that logic. I just believe that God exists and that this is a highly reasonable belief.

philologos

SirenX wrote:

@Jakkass
why why why are you in the Athiest & Agnostic forum? you are clearly neither. you don't see me going on the the Christianity forum spouting my beliefs to people whom would most likely be offended so why come here?
clearly the churches are not growing. just look at the amount of people on this forum. you wouldn't find this many Athiests and Agnostics in Ireland 100 years ago.

I know that you deleted this post but there is a point that should be addressed. Churches are growing both in Britain and Ireland, I've seen it in both first hand. Christian ministries outside of the church are also growing considerably. Again, I've seen this first hand. What you are right in saying is that many churches are in decline, you have to ask why they are in decline. It isn't because people dislike Christianity but because these churches have nothing to offer them.

You are correct that you wouldn't see this many atheists or agnostics. You are also beginning to see many believers becoming strengthened in their faith. I've also seen people who would have never had an interest in Christianity begin to read the Bible and discover more about Jesus. All based on evidence.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

...One can merely observe reality and see that it is more probable that God exists than not, and certainly more reasonable than not. The one area I have been convinced the most is in respect to the human operation of morality, and indeed another area would be the mere logic behind Creation.

That is completely untrue. Logic behind creation wtf?

Jakkass wrote: »

It is through a revelation that Christians can claim to have some form of knowledge about God.

Revelation is as useful as delusion.

Jakkass wrote: »

If indeed a God exists, I don't think it is unreasonable to deduce that:
1) God would have a respect for His creation.
2) It would be possible for God to reveal Himself to mankind.

If God doesn't exist there is no revelation and we're utterly deluded. I'm quite happy to accept that logic. I just believe that God exists and that this is a highly reasonable belief.

You always say this but never qualify it.

Penn

Jakkass wrote: »

I know that you deleted this post but there is a point that should be addressed. Churches are growing both in Britain and Ireland, I've seen it in both first hand. Christian ministries outside of the church are also growing considerably. Again, I've seen this first hand. What you are right in saying is that many churches are in decline, you have to ask why they are in decline. It isn't because people dislike Christianity but because these churches have nothing to offer them.

You are correct that you wouldn't see this many atheists or agnostics. You are also beginning to see many believers becoming strengthened in their faith. I've also seen people who would have never had an interest in Christianity begin to read the Bible and discover more about Jesus. All based on evidence.

But how does that match up to the figures Anne Widdecombe mentioned in the programme about approximately 2,500 people per week who stop going to church? While I'm sure new people find faith and join the church, and that numbers may be increasing in some areas, do you think that number would be more than 2,500 per week?

She did say in the programme that church numbers have seemed to level-off somewhat, so I would concede that those numbers may be close. But is it sustainable? Can church numbers increase? In several of the clips shown of cathedral or church masses, the average age of people there was quite high. Obviously, this is not a true representation, and I'm merely pointing it out as an example, but if fewer young people are going to Mass (and based on the people I know, they don't regularly), how can the number of people regularly going to Mass possibly increase?

Much of the programme was spent showing different types of Mass. The curry house mass, evangelists, the Jesus House place etc. With so many different ways and alternatives to Mass, are they in danger of spreading themselves out too much and causing too much division in their messages, and not being able to sustain so many different types of service?

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That is completely untrue. Logic behind creation wtf?

Revelation is as useful as delusion.

You always say this but never qualify it.

Not another one of these posts :pac:

1. It is more logical and sensible that there is a Creator behind the universe than none at all, most physicists would agree that this universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe can tell us how old it is. Things of finite age have a cause, they have a beginning.

2. We know that you think that revelation is a delusion, for the logic I described. If God doesn't exist, it certainly is a delusion. If God does exist it is reality it is a truth that God has done so. I believe His word is living truth, you believe it is an elaborate lie. We know this already, restating the obvious isn't really all that useful.

3. I have several times over the years I've posted on this forum.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

.. if your religion is true.

Not at all. The actions are there, whether you believe that their motivating factor is a fairy story or not. The message was powerful enough to motivate these people to be beacons for Christ, and leave selfishness aside.

Otherwise they are simply doing good things because they think doing good things is good, and crediting Christianity because Christianity has told them that if they want to do good things it is because of God, the Good News, the "power of the message" etc etc

Not at all. They are doing good things, and a lot of the time dedicating themselves to others as a direct result of their Christianity. You are trying to argue that they would do this anyway, but this is simply untrue.

Again, atheist forum Jimi. The Christian BS don't get an automatic pass here.

I know where I am, and you're better than that comment.

philologos

Barrington wrote: »

But how does that match up to the figures Anne Widdecombe mentioned in the programme about approximately 2,500 people per week who stop going to church? While I'm sure new people find faith and join the church, and that numbers may be increasing in some areas, do you think that number would be more than 2,500 per week?

I think nearly this much. The latest statistics we have show that church attendance is stabilising. The Baptist Union of Great Britain showed growth last year with most growth being from 13 - 18 year olds.

Courtesy of the Guardian - Sept 2010.

Barrington wrote: »

She did say in the programme that church numbers have seemed to level-off somewhat, so I would concede that those numbers may be close. But is it sustainable? Can church numbers increase? In several of the clips shown of cathedral or church masses, the average age of people there was quite high. Obviously, this is not a true representation, and I'm merely pointing it out as an example, but if fewer young people are going to Mass (and based on the people I know, they don't regularly), how can the number of people regularly going to Mass possibly increase?

Is it sustainable - Yes, in fact ministries in the UK and Ireland from what I have seen are putting in better effort than they have ever done in the past.

Can church numbers increase - I think so. You can see this on an individual church level but perhaps churches will grow as a unit eventually.

Cathedrals aren't the only source of churches. If we limit ourselves to the merely traditional then we will see that this is a source of growth. The biggest growth I have seen are in more evangelical / Reformed churches. The churches that grow the most are the churches that remain faithful to Christian teaching, that allow people to be a real part of the church, and churches with outreach activities.

Fewer people in the younger demographic are going to more traditional churches, this is true. I have seen growth outside of this in the 18 - 24 group and I know a lot of people who are passionate about their faith. I've only started to notice this

Barrington wrote: »

Much of the programme was spent showing different types of Mass. The curry house mass, evangelists, the Jesus House place etc. With so many different ways and alternatives to Mass, are they in danger of spreading themselves out too much and causing too much division in their messages, and not being able to sustain so many different types of service?

Well they wouldn't call them "Mass" :pac:

I don't think what you're saying is true though. If one looks to the US or other developed societies where churches are stable at the very least, there is a variety of churches. Another example would be Australia.

It isn't much about the message of the churches as I would see it, it is about ensuring that churches remain faithful to the Gospel, and encouraging people to read the Bible for themselves and enter into a personal relationship with Jesus rather than blindly trusting what people say on the pulpit.

robindch

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Revelation is as useful as delusion.

I think it would be fairer to say that "revelation" is indistinguishable from delusion. Its usefulness follows from that.

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all. They are doing good things, and a lot of the time dedicating themselves to others as a direct result of their Christianity. You are trying to argue that they would do this anyway, but this is simply untrue.

If I may quote from an Evangelical Alliance study carried out recently:

The more time an evangelical Christian spends reading the Bible each week, the more active they are in other areas of their faith. They are more likely to volunteer, to give money, to pray frequently and talk about their faith.

Full study here.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Not another one of these posts :pac:

What's that supposed to mean? Are you afraid to address the flaws in your position?

Jakkass wrote: »

1. It is more logical and sensible that there is a Creator behind the universe than none at all,

All things considered it really isn't, mainly because it has no explanatory power at all.

Jakkass wrote: »

most physicists would agree that this universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe can tell us how old it is. Things of finite age have a cause, they have a beginning.

Wow impressive you should get the Noble prize for physics :rolleyes:

Jakkass wrote: »

2. We know that you think that revelation is a delusion, for the logic I described. If God doesn't exist, it certainly is a delusion. If God does exist it is reality it is a truth that God has done so. I believe His word is living truth, you believe it is an elaborate lie. We know this already, restating the obvious isn't really all that useful...

You're begging the question as always.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

Not another one of these posts :pac:

1. It is more logical and sensible that there is a Creator behind the universe than none at all, most physicists would agree that this universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe can tell us how old it is. Things of finite age have a cause, they have a beginning.

So why can't the 'beginning'/cause be some other natural process that we don't know anything about? We can only know so much about the universe, because we are constrained by the fact that it's all we know exists. But beyond that, who knows what's going on? You're just ending the conversation at 'God did it' with no justification.

And what you're describing above is justification for wishy-washy Deism. Anything to do with the specific religions on earth, you're just pulling out of your ass [insert holy book here]

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean? Are you afraid to address the flaws in your position?

Not at all. I think your post is merely restating what we already know. We already know what assumptions you're bringing to the table, we need to go beyond these rather than merely restating them.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

All things considered it really isn't, mainly because it has no explanatory power at all.

Again, only if your logic holds up. If God doesn't exist then certainly it doesn't have this power. If God does it has the most explanatory power possible. Tell us something new.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You're begging the question as always.

How? I'm merely going over how your understanding differs to mine because you posted the patently obvious.

It'd be great if we could keep this on the topic of church attendance and the future of Christianity in UK / Ireland.

JimiTime

Improbable wrote: »

I didn't say that there aren't christians who do good things. I didn't even say that there aren't christians who do good things because of what they believe about christianity. I just said christians should stop making the rest of us suffer. You're the one that came in guns a blazing to defend christianity against a point of view that I never espoused.

Of course you espoused it. here is your quote:

"I hope that eventually, all religion dwindles down to what it should be. Something that people believe in the privacy of their own minds without making the rest of us suffer for it."

Yet, it is Christ that motivates so many people to relieve ACTUAL suffering. As I said, you render such words as 'suffering' completely worthless when you espouse a notion that if someone doesn't keep their faith private you 'suffer'. You don't know you're born. You undermine ACTUAL suffering, while at the same time ridicule the motive that is behind so many people actively dedicating themselves to easing ACTUAL suffering.

Explain how.

How its complete nonsense that Christians are motivated to do good things because of the threat of hell? Simple, most don't even think about hell in terms of themselves. Love and faith are the motives. A desire to bring light to the darkness, and emulate Christs love for mankind.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....It'd be great if we could keep this on the topic of church attendance and the future of Christianity in UK / Ireland.

Fair enough, teach rationality and religions won't stand. That's my position.

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

1. It is more logical and sensible that there is a Creator behind the universe than none at all, most physicists would agree that this universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe can tell us how old it is. Things of finite age have a cause, they have a beginning.

Can we please not have another first cause debate.

Most physicists, Jakkass, would not agree with you on much of anything. The Big Bang theory does not describe the universe having its beginning at the big bang. The theory states that the original state of the universe was an extremely hot dense state which underwent a rapid expansion which still continues today 13.75 ± 0.12 billion years later. Our current understanding of the events at the time of the big bang break down at planck time (10^-43 seconds) after the big bang (Planck time being the point at which gravity separated from the other fundamental forces of nature, or alternatively where gravity became significant). The theory does not speculate on what caused it (I should point out in the same way that evolution does not comment on abiogenesis). There are different cosmogonical theories about what may have caused this hot dense state to arise. These include, but are not limited to the collision of bubble universes, the destruction of a previous universe or a blip in the timeline of an eternal universe.

First cause arguments are self-refuting anyway but you also have demonstrated a particular weak point of the first cause argument, namely that everything of finite age must have a cause. Everything in the material world does not need a cause as the Casimir Effect and the phenomenon of radioactive decay nicely demonstrate.

Something only becomes reasonable if there is evidence enough to suggest it in the first place. There is early experimental evidence to support some of the cosmogonical theories such as Roger Penrose's cyclic universe theory but none so far to indicate that there is any intelligent force behind it other than wild assertions and wishful thinking.

smokingman

Dave! wrote: »

You're just ending the conversation at 'God did it' with no justification.

This is what is always boils down to and is the one thing that annoys me more than any other argument.

Previously, it was pointed out that the Polyfilla argument is "harmful" because it hinders real thought and research and this affront to science is the base of all religions - ergo, all religions are harmful to the human race imo.

I would like to imagine a world where there is none and look forward to the advancement of mankind, free from the shackles of oppressive thought magic.

We can but lay logic in front of people and give them the tools to be better human beings in themselves. It is the noblest of aims and I look forward to the future as a result.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

And yet when you scratch beneath the surface you find that these people are really just using their 'charitable' works to inflict their own world-view on others. Normally those in some form of trouble, who'd have thought that vulnerable people, be they homeless alcoholics in Dublin or the latest victims of a natural disaster would be susceptible to strings attached evangelism, aid in one hand, a new faith in the other.

You're not the first cynic, nor will you be the last. The truth is, is that they are DOING, and doing it in abundance, and a lot of the time devoting their lives to others. Simply because you are not privy to the conviction that motivates such people, does not automatically mean sinister motives are at work. Your implication that giving the gospel message is a sinister act is where your reasoning tumbles. A Christian who holds onto such a glorious life giving message and keeps it to himself is to be condemned. What a selfish thing to do. Whether YOU believe it or not is completely irrelevant. If Christianity is true, and obviously to a Christian it is, then there would be nothing more sinister than keeping the Good News message to oneself.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Fair enough, teach rationality and religions won't stand. That's my position.

Ring a ring a rosey? :pac:
This seems to be very circular reasoning unless one is going to explain why. "Rationality" is meaningless unless one can explain why one is using it.

Although I do think looking to the practical reasons why Christianity may or may not survive may be best and indeed more interesting for us all.