smacl wrote: » Article written by Nick Park, an executive director of Evangelical Alliance Ireland, not that it is a bad article but it is from someone actively promoting evangelicalism. The comments below the article are rather entertaining. Evangelicalism currently represents about 1.5% of the population in this country, so very much a minority concern.
NCS wrote: » Far from it. There is, however, a significant distinction between the Biblical fellowship of believers referred to as 'the Church' and the contemporary use of the title 'Church' to collectively describe denominations differing by theological understanding and practice. Jesus made it very clear that the price of belief would be high and that only a minority would be successful. He also wasn't particularly inclusive of all scriptural interpretations, having a major beef with both the Pharisees and Sadducees who were the legalists and liberals of the day as well as more gently correcting a Samaritan with: "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews." This continues into the Epistles which spend a great deal of time correcting theology and practice within the new churches. My opinion is that the body of believers, the true Biblical Church, spans most (if not all) Christian denominations but the externals of baptism, membership, attendance and other outward practice are no guarantee of personal relationship with God nor salvation. So relative or absolute headcounts can be very misleading, particularly where religion and culture are strongly linked as, for example, in the case of Ireland.
NCS wrote: » The believing Church will always be a minority concern, Jesus warned as much.
smacl wrote: » The comments below the article are rather entertaining.
"such churches, having never been part of the political or cultural power structures in the State, are generally unaffected by the scandals that have disillusioned so many." Indeed not: their speciality tends rather to be the pastor absconding with the cash box under one arm and his secretary under the other, of which I could relate several juicy examples. But give them any secular power, such as they are now seeking in countries like Brazil, and they'd soon be as corrupt as any of the established churches: probably with brass knobs on given the generally poor backgrounds and low educational levels of their leaders. In the United States "TV evangelist" and "fraudster" are now virtually interchangeable terms. One such rejoices in the name of the Rev. Chuck Swindell, which is a name that even Graham Linehan would have hesitated to invent.
Iliana Cold Mayonnaise wrote: » The Church is s lot bigger that the RC denomination. Pentecostal Churches are the fastest growing worldwide. This is just Ireland.https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/a-religious-revolution-is-taking-place-in-ireland-1.3092198?mode=amp
Peregrinus wrote: » You don't grow out of conditioning - that's kind of the point.
realdanbreen wrote: » I don't doubt your belief and the belief of others on this topic but I get a little scared that ye don't seem to be willing to address the huge elephant in the room and that is the ever dwindling numbers attending church and the complete absence of priests and nuns joining up. That indicates one thing to me and it is that people find it hard to believe and they are not being helped by the clergy who after all if nothing else are paid to do a job. I'm no spring chicken but I can honestly say that I don't ever recall meeting a priest who in any way sounded like he was convinced about the afterlife or anything.
The Nal wrote: » Its called conditioning. People don't know any better, simple as that really.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » Which doesn't apply to enlightened types like yourself I suppose :rolleyes:
The Nal wrote: » It did until I was about 11 or 12.
Iliana Cold Mayonnaise wrote: » Not believed by who? By you? I believe them as do many others. Going on your word is like asking a blind man what colour he sees when looking at a red light.
smacl wrote: » Yet none of these miracles is verifiable or believed as accurate from a historical perspective and most other major religions have similar yet conflicting tales of miracle. If someone claiming to be an agent of God was able to part the Red Sea simply by waving his hands around, I for one would be reconsidering my position. That said, I'm not holding my breath in anticipation
Iliana Cold Mayonnaise wrote: » He already did that and when He came among we didn't believe Him despite the miracles and then crucified Him. Just like ancient Israel. Delivered from the Egyptians, red sea parted, thunder and lightening and a voice from the top of the mountain and they stopped their ears, said no more and didn't believe in the God that delivered them.
Do you really think it would be any different now?
smacl wrote: » By definition an omnipotent being would be able to present a message that was within our ability to grasp?
NCS wrote: » Whichever way you look at it, life is far-fetched. That, in itself, is no reason to discard the theory that God might just have chosen that place and that time.
realdanbreen wrote: » The Why are you guys so scared that you cannot even consider that God making himself obvious to present day mankind is a good idea. Most free thinking adults find it a bit far fetched that God would only have made himself known in riddles and parables for a very brief period 2000 years ago and only in a tiny patch of land in the middle east.
John 16:4-15 wrote: “I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
ChrisJ84 wrote: » realdanbreen wrote: » Well I would imagine God would be able to speak pretty much from the heavens, visible to all , and say whatever needs to be said. I am deadly serious. If there is a god and he has a message then why would it not be clearly delivered and not open to misinterpretation. As things stand there are 4000+ religions out there not to mention those with no religious beliefs. That is exactly what the bible tells us - the heavens declare the glory of God. In Romans, Paul points out that God's "eternal power and divine nature" can be seen by everyone in creation, and that on that basis we have no excuse for denying him. The bible is also clear that the fact that we do deny him is on us, not on God. Thankfully, God doesn't leave us in this mess that we've made for ourselves.
realdanbreen wrote: » Well I would imagine God would be able to speak pretty much from the heavens, visible to all , and say whatever needs to be said. I am deadly serious. If there is a god and he has a message then why would it not be clearly delivered and not open to misinterpretation. As things stand there are 4000+ religions out there not to mention those with no religious beliefs.
realdanbreen wrote: » Wouldn't you imagine that whichever god is out there he/she/it would just make themselves visibly known( I mean clearly, not in some writings that are thousands of years old) everyone on the planet then understands what's required and we all live happily ever after!
Effects wrote: » Our brains wouldn't be able to comprehend the reality of it. It's much better to work in ambiguities and faith without clear reality.
realdanbreen wrote: » If there is a god and he has a message then why would it not be clearly delivered and not open to misinterpretation.
Peregrinus wrote: » What manifestation of God would satisfy this criterion? Serious question.
smacl wrote: » And Ganesha?
Iliana Cold Mayonnaise wrote: » Not every burger that looks like a big mac is a Big Mac!
JJayoo wrote: » Maybe Jesus was gonna have the demon pigs butchered get some tasty demon rashers
