Street Preacher arrested for singing and preeching of Jesus

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

While they are currently very much a minority, there are an increasing number of Christian churches blessing same sex marriages. Going forward I imagine this will only increase as churches either follow changing social attitudes or risk becoming irrelevant to the larger part of society.

The role of the church is to proclaim the truth - even if it is not popular - not to conform to the trends of the day.

nozzferrahhtoo

John Hutton wrote: »

The role of the church is to proclaim the truth - even if it is not popular - not to conform to the trends of the day.

To which church specifically do you refer here? The link the user offered listed several.... representing quite a wide cross section of the Christian Churches in our world.

Perhaps you are talking specifically about the role of YOUR church? Which is fine of course.

But if you are not.... then surely it is up to any given church to decide for themselves what their remit, purpose, and procedures are? Not you? And not me? We do not get to define this for them, or tell them what their role is. They tell US that.

And if a Christian Church decides their role is to lead people to the teachings of Christ by applying those teachings, and interpreting them, in light of modernity rather than the age he himself lived in.... then that is up to them.

John Hutton

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To which church specifically do you refer here? The link the user offered listed several.... representing quite a wide cross section of the Christian Churches in our world.

Perhaps you are talking specifically about the role of YOUR church? Which is fine of course.

But if you are not.... then surely it is up to any given church to decide for themselves what their remit, purpose, and procedures are? Not you? And not me? We do not get to define this for them, or tell them what their role is. They tell US that.

And if a Christian Church decides their role is to lead people to the teachings of Christ by applying those teachings, and interpreting them, in light of modernity rather than the age he himself lived in.... then that is up to them.

They represent a cross section of protestant churches of which there are almost innumerable examples, each with their own take, or a very small amount of Catholics going on a solo run.

I refer to the role of the church in God's plan, the church of course being the one 'set up' by Christ. So it is for God to decide the role, remit, purpose etc. of the church, which He has. (Although man has done his very best to mess it up and destroy it, but it continues still). I could go on about the role of the Catholic Church in God's plan, but you can Google that yourself, there's much written about it...

Of course, with you being a determined unbeliever (not to mention an unrepentant desecrator of the Eucharist) this won't make much sense to you. If Christ were not God but rather a mere philosopher with some nice teachings for and of his period in history your general argument would have some validity - but that's not the case.

A common trend in these discussions is the avoidance of the central question of if God exists and the resultant nature of Jesus Christ. If you skip over this to discuss other aspects of faith (which is tempting as I have yet to see anyone get convinced one way or the other on an internet forum) it effectively makes any resultant conversation redundant, because you and I are speaking not only from different points of view but entirely different frames of reference. You can say that aspects of faith or practice don't make sense, but with the absence of God this can only be the case and no one should be surprised by this. The entire thing stands or falls on the existence of God, and Jesus being true God and true Man. With two decided, determined, opposite and sincerely held opposing views on this fundamental question discussions like this on an internet forum with people like you (you have already formed an immovable - by man anyway - opinion on the subject of God) can never come to any sort of satisfactory conclusion.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

The role of the church is to proclaim the truth - even if it is not popular - not to conform to the trends of the day.

While that might well be the case, falling attendances and membership is a well documented concern of the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church at all levels. Even the pope has gone so far as to recognize the legitimacy of same sex partnerships even if he doesn't go as far as allowing marriage. Compare this to RCC attitudes to homosexuality a few decades back and you will note a stark change which is clearly in response to evolving social attitudes. Do you have any reason to believe that this trend will not continue?

I think it is worth remembering also that the church is part of society. While the church can and does influence society, likewise society influences the church.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

While that might well be the case, falling attendances and membership is a well documented concern of the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church at all levels. Even the pope has gone so far as to recognize the legitimacy of same sex partnerships even if he doesn't go as far as allowing marriage. Compare this to RCC attitudes to homosexuality a few decades back and you will note a stark change which is clearly in response to evolving social attitudes. Do you have any reason to believe that this trend will not continue?

I think it is worth remembering also that the church is part of society. While the church can and does influence society, likewise society influences the church.

It is a concern in certain parts of the world, but this is not the first time this has happened and the solution is certainly not the changing of fundamental beliefs, not least because these represent fundamental truths and are not subject to change.

I think you have confused yourself as to what Pope Francis actually did or said... The Church's teaching on homosexuality has not changed. But even so, the Church's teaching on sexuality is a very small aspect of what it teaches (although you wouldn't guess that from the obsession shown towards it).

Should the church get smaller I think it is far more likely that it will be a smaller, more fervent and decidedly counter cultural church, there are signs of this already.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

It is a concern in certain parts of the world, but this is not the first time this has happened and the solution is certainly not the changing of fundamental beliefs, not least because these represent fundamental truths and are not subject to change.

Even in my lifetime I can think of many stories from the bible that were taught and considered by many as being literally true are now considered allegory.

I think you have confused yourself as to what Pope Francis actually did or said... The Church's teaching on homosexuality has not changed. But even so, the Church's teaching on sexuality is a very small aspect of what it teaches (although you wouldn't guess that from the obsession shown towards it).

Really? From the linked Irish Times article

Pope Francis wrote:

“Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it,” he said.

“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that,” he said.

further on we see this

The church has also opposed civil union legislation, and Pope Benedict XVI, Francis’s predecessor, once wrote, “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

That certainly seems to be to be a significant shift, in fact you could say that Pope's Francis and Benedict are diametrically opposed here. While the underlying doctrine may not have changed, the surrounding attitudes most certainly have.

Should the church get smaller I think it is far more likely that it will be a smaller, more fervent and decidedly counter cultural church, there are signs of this already.

A reduced and more concentrated church is certainly a possibility, though the cynic in me suspects that the RCC hierarchy would be extremely reluctant to relinquish their position of influence on society and hence strive to avoid this.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Even in my lifetime I can think of many stories from the bible that were taught and considered by many as being literally true are now considered allegory.

We are talking about fundamental beliefs and tenants of faith though. Not interpretation of stories from the Old testament.

Really? From the linked Irish Times article

further on we see this

That certainly seems to be to be a significant shift, in fact you could say that Pope's Francis and Benedict are diametrically opposed here. While the underlying doctrine may not have changed, the surrounding attitudes most certainly have.

There's a thread on this: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058124120

Pope Francis has adopted a more pastoral approach that is clear, but the teaching remains the same - you won't see authorized blessings or gay marriages in Catholic Churches any time soon.

But this is all beside the point, I do not believe that people will suddenly rush into the church if they start doing gay marriages. This is really insulting the intelligence of people and their belief or lack of belief in God.

The church, if it did bend to the whims of modern society, changed its practices and ignored these laws and gave blessing and encouragement to any form of sinful behavior in an effort to seem kind to the sinner and to attract followers it would in fact be the opposite of kindness and would surely be ill judged.

A reduced and more concentrated church is certainly a possibility, though the cynic in me suspects that the RCC hierarchy would be extremely reluctant to relinquish their position of influence on society and hence strive to avoid this.

I'm not saying it will be adopted as a policy, but rather it is something will will develop. If the only people attending Mass etc. are doing so out of genuine belief rather than social obligation or habit it is inevitable that the church would become more concentrated and 'purified'. Perhaps it would expand again in the future, one would hope in a better way.

nozzferrahhtoo

John Hutton wrote: »

They represent a cross section of protestant churches

What of it? The make up of this cross section is irrelevant to my point. AGAIN unless you are speaking for your own church, and only your own church, it is not your place to declare what THEIR role is. That is for them to decide. Not you. Not me. Not Boards.ie

John Hutton wrote: »

I refer to the role of the church in God's plan, the church of course being the one 'set up' by Christ.

Very vague which one you think you are talking about. IF it is your own church then as I already said.... you are perfectly free to tell us what your church sees it's own role to be. Though I would still move to ask them myself directly if I was interested, rather than take any one word for it from their congregation.

But you do not get to do this for any other church. At all. And simply calling one church "the" church does not make it so either. Each person going to their church likely believes their church is the right one, with the one true word and path to god. They have faith theirs is the right one. You probably have the same for your own. Your faith does not trump theirs.

The point again being that responding to someone giving a LIST of churches who allow same sex marriage with a comment about "the role" of "the church" is a bit irrelevant. It would be like responding to a list of variations on the game of football in the word with a comment like "The role of the ball in football is to be kicked".

John Hutton wrote: »

Of course, with you being a determined unbeliever (not to mention an unrepentant desecrator of the Eucharist) this won't make much sense to you.

Not agreeing with your world view does not mean I can not understand your word view or make sense of it. You can pocket the ad hominem thanks.

John Hutton wrote: »

The entire thing stands or falls on the existence of God, and Jesus being true God and true Man.

Except it does not stand or fall on just that. Because as I said above each follower of Jesus in other churches other than the one you call "the" church likely says exactly the same things as you do.

Perhaps if this was specifically a forum dedicated to your brand of Christianity only you would have a point. But just in case I am in the wrong here I just re-read the charter and points 1 and 2 on it suggest I am not.

John Hutton wrote: »

(you have already formed an immovable - by man anyway - opinion on the subject of God)

I am not sure why you feel the need to tell me what I think, rather than ask me what I think. But just to pull some of your straw out of the straw man.... I am aware of NO opinion or world view I have that is remotely "immovable". Every thing I hold to in my mind is subject to, and available for, change at any time.

John Hutton wrote: »

We are talking about fundamental beliefs and tenants of faith though.

And the results of the surveys at the Bishops Conference in Ireland call into question what they actually are to be honest. With significant %s of Catholics not at all identifying with, or believing, many of the tenets of the faith. Including a surprising 8% of Catholics who do not even believe there is a god. And as you made clear above with an irrelevant side reference... you are already aware of my experience with Catholics having quite divergent opinions of the meaning and content of the Eucharist.

It is not clear at all to me which beliefs are "fundamental" at all to any particular faith. It seems people can, and do, self identify with a faith even if they do not believe.... or sometimes even seem aware of.... much of it's content.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

We are talking about fundamental beliefs and tenants of faith though. Not interpretation of stories from the Old testament.

Certainly in this country I think there has been an erosion of beliefs at all levels. This ranges from holding Old testament stories literally true to abandonment of religious belief in its entirety.

There's a thread on this: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058124120

Pope Francis has adopted a more pastoral approach that is clear, but the teaching remains the same - you won't see authorized blessings or gay marriages in Catholic Churches any time soon.

But this is all beside the point, I do not believe that people will suddenly rush into the church if they start doing gay marriages. This is really insulting the intelligence of people and their belief or lack of belief in God.

The church, if it did bend to the whims of modern society, changed its practices and ignored these laws and gave blessing and encouragement to any form of sinful behavior in an effort to seem kind to the sinner and to attract followers it would in fact be the opposite of kindness and would surely be ill judged.

I agree entirely that increased acceptance of gay relationships, or even blessing gay marriage, will do little to attract more people to the church. I don't however think that's the point so much as trying to stem the flow of people away from the church at a time where society at large is entirely accepting of being gay.

I'm not saying it will be adopted as a policy, but rather it is something will will develop. If the only people attending Mass etc. are doing so out of genuine belief rather than social obligation or habit it is inevitable that the church would become more concentrated and 'purified'. Perhaps it would expand again in the future, one would hope in a better way.

Again, I tend to agree, but it could result in a considerably smaller church. In my opinion one of the main factors that sustains religious tradition in this country is the churches large scale involvement in the education system. A significantly numerically reduced church would lead to a proportionate exit from education. Over the course of a generation, this in turn would lead to a decimation in the number of regular church goers.

I strongly suspect that Catholicism in this country at this point in time is as much a tradition as a belief system for many, which is strongly interwoven with the fabric of our society. Disentangling this to the extent that you are left with a church and laity comprising solely of devout believers has the potential to destroy both. I suspect there are many in the hierarchy, including Francis, who are cognizant of this and willing to make all sorts of comprises to avoid it.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Certainly in this country I think there has been an erosion of beliefs at all levels. This ranges from holding Old testament stories literally true to abandonment of religious belief in its entirety.

I agree entirely that increased acceptance of gay relationships, or even blessing gay marriage, will do little to attract more people to the church. I don't however think that's the point so much as trying to stem the flow of people away from the church at a time where society at large is entirely accepting of being gay.

I would agree with the assessment of Frank Duff that the Catholic faith in Ireland during its height in the 20th Century was essentially a mile wide but only an inch deep, the daily attendance of Mass (or lack thereof) being a litmus for this.

Again, I tend to agree, but it could result in a considerably smaller church. In my opinion one of the main factors that sustains religious tradition in this country is the churches large scale involvement in the education system. A significantly numerically reduced church would lead to a proportionate exit from education. Over the course of a generation, this in turn would lead to a decimation in the number of regular church goers.

I see little evidence for your opinion, the vast majority of children who make their first communion or conformation are very rarely taken to Mass by their parents otherwise. For many baptism is a social occasion where the attendees clearly don't have any idea of what is going on beyond a day out. There is very little evidence that attendance at a 'catholic' school results in any attendance at Mass by students, aside from something like a graduation Mass.

I strongly suspect that Catholicism in this country at this point in time is as much a tradition as a belief system for many, which is strongly interwoven with the fabric of our society. Disentangling this to the extent that you are left with a church and laity comprising solely of devout believers has the potential to destroy both. I suspect there are many in the hierarchy, including Francis, who are cognizant of this and willing to make all sorts of comprises to avoid it.

Obviously the faithful want more people to attend Mass and practice the religion - it would be most cruel and a sin to basically go "I'm alright Jack" and not care about all the people missing out on the Good News. I suspect you have some wishful thinking there when it comes to "compromises", you will not see any changes in the fundamental teachings of the Church, presentation or emphasis may change in line with the priorities of the hierarchy and context of the culture (as they do with individual priests) it is a, eh, broad church after all. It would be most cruel to lie to people and teach that sin is actually ok just to try and get them to go to Mass. Not only would this be a grave sin, it also wouldn't work.

Some of the older generation of Bishops and Archbishops (looking at one in particular ) are clearly shell shocked that so much has changed and have no idea what to do. But others, especially the younger clergy and many young Catholics are up for the challenge.

I'm not too concerned for the future of the Church.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

I would agree with the assessment of Frank Duff that the Catholic faith in Ireland during its height in the 20th Century was essentially a mile wide but only an inch deep, the daily attendance of Mass (or lack thereof) being a litmus for this.

Seems like a reasonable assessment.

I see little evidence for your opinion, the vast majority of children who make their first communion or conformation are very rarely taken to Mass by their parents otherwise. For many baptism is a social occasion where the attendees clearly don't have any idea of what is going on beyond a day out. There is very little evidence that attendance at a 'catholic' school results in any attendance at Mass by students, aside from something like a graduation Mass.

Again, I tend to agree. The reason there is very little evidence here is that the vast majority of students attend 'catholic' schools so this is a difficult variable to work with in terms of causation. If you were to flip this and ask how many adults who attend mass regularly didn't attend a 'catholic' school you would get a correspondingly small number for the same reason. The question is though that if the burden of preparing children for confirmation and communion was shifted from the education system to the family, how many families simply wouldn't bother? In saying that these children would never be regular mass goers on the basis that their parents are not implies that declining mass attendance can only continue in one direction.

Obviously the faithful want more people to attend Mass and practice the religion - it would be most cruel and a sin to basically go "I'm alright Jack" and not care about all the people missing out on the Good News. I suspect you have some wishful thinking there when it comes to "compromises", you will not see any changes in the fundamental teachings of the Church, presentation or emphasis may change in line with the priorities of the hierarchy and context of the culture (as they do with individual priests) it is a, eh, broad church after all. It would be most cruel to lie to people and teach that sin is actually ok just to try and get them to go to Mass. Not only would this be a grave sin, it also wouldn't work.

As you say, it is a broad church. If society has an appetite for a church more closely aligned to prevalent societal attitudes I don't doubt there are those that will meet that need. I argue that this isn't wishful thinking on my part as the church has little to no influence on my life or my families at this point in time.

Some of the older generation of Bishops and Archbishops (looking at one in particular ) are clearly shell shocked that so much has changed and have no idea what to do. But others, especially the younger clergy and many young Catholics are up for the challenge.

I'm not too concerned for the future of the Church.

Nor I

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Seems like a reasonable assessment.

Again, I tend to agree. The reason there is very little evidence here is that the vast majority of students attend 'catholic' schools so this is a difficult variable to work with in terms of causation. If you were to flip this and ask how many adults who attend mass regularly didn't attend a 'catholic' school you would get a correspondingly small number for the same reason. The question is though that if the burden of preparing children for confirmation and communion was shifted from the education system to the family, how many families simply wouldn't bother? In saying that these children would never be regular mass goers on the basis that their parents are not implies that declining mass attendance can only continue in one direction.

The reality is that the majority of 'catholic' schools teach very little about Catholicism. People moan about how Irish is taught and how you know little after years of studying it, well after attending primary and secondary 'catholic' schools most students know very little about the faith beyond the general story of Jesus. I see no issue with preparation for sacraments happening outside of schools, or, if in schools, only within a relatively small number of truly catholic schools where the faith is actually practiced (and parents send their kids there for that reason). Every so often a priest suggests that students should not have confirmation or communion if their parents don't practice and the child never goes to mass. Invariably he is shouted down by the parents, often viciously.

My point is that schools, as they are, have almost no influence on Mass attendance. A decline will continue, demographics certainly suggest that, but it is certainly possible that, as has happened before, it may increase again in the future. It is young adults I think who the church should evangelize, and it will grow from there. Or maybe it wont. But I think it extremely unlikely that the Church would disappear altogether, it certainly hasn't in other countries were far less people attend Mass.

As you say, it is a broad church. If society has an appetite for a church more closely aligned to prevalent societal attitudes I don't doubt there are those that will meet that need. I argue that this isn't wishful thinking on my part as the church has little to no influence on my life or my families at this point in time.

Oh I'm sure there are, that's why there are so many protestant churches, but following the prevailing wind of a culture of a certain time rarely works, certainly if, as I alluded to previously, it's wrong and contradicts fundamental truths.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

My point is that schools, as they are, have almost no influence on Mass attendance. A decline will continue, demographics certainly suggest that, but it is certainly possible that, as has happened before, it may increase again in the future. It is young adults I think who the church should evangelize, and it will grow from there. Or maybe it wont. But I think it extremely unlikely that the Church would disappear altogether, it certainly hasn't in other countries were far less people attend Mass.

You say that, but I'm not seeing any evidence to support it. For example, who is to say that if the religious ethos, as it is now, were to be removed from schools that the decline in religious observance would not significantly increase? I agree that this is something already in decline, as evidenced here https://faithsurvey.co.uk/irish-census.html , but while religious ethos will not halt this effect there is no reason to assume it is not slowing it. As you say, any growth is dependent on getting youth involvement, something the Jesuits were all to well aware of. Schools provide a captive audience here, lose that and how else would you reach it? I rather doubt it would be street preachers.

Oh I'm sure there are, that's why there are so many protestant churches, but following the prevailing wind of a culture of a certain time rarely works, certainly if, as I alluded to previously, it's wrong and contradicts fundamental truths.

Only time will tell on that one. I strongly suspect that any church which is not at the heart of its community is bound to perish.

ChrisJ84

John Hutton wrote: »

Oh I'm sure there are, that's why there are so many protestant churches, but following the prevailing wind of a culture of a certain time rarely works, certainly if, as I alluded to previously, it's wrong and contradicts fundamental truths.

smacl wrote: »

Only time will tell on that one. I strongly suspect that any church which is not at the heart of its community is bound to perish.

This resonates a lot with me, and is the reason that the so-called "mainline" Protestant churches are in seemingly terminal decline. If you only offer what the world has to offer, then why on earth would people bother coming to church? Following cultural winds can give churches a short term boost, but in the past this has always faded in time and there's no reason to think that anything has changed.

In my experience, the churches that are vibrant and growing are those that know what they believe and why, and who genuinely seek to love and serve the people in their communities. Both are equally important, and provide a something that is much more compelling.