Can Christianity Adapt to Survive?

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

This does not characterize religion. This is what characterizes politics including religious politics but not exclusively.

Actually, to some extent I'd say that is what characterises people, though I would say religion excels when it comes to the mental acrobatics required in order to justify changes in doctrinal or theological beliefs/declarations.

Except for you?

Did I say that? No, we all susceptible to confirmation bias, to cultural bias, even to holding contradictory or nonsensical beliefs. The thing is to admit that, and then to go about changing your thinking to filter out as much of it as you can. I'm not saying "I've arrived" and so now I'm immune to irrational or illogical thought, but I've found that a bit of introspection and examination of what I believe with honest analysis to be tremendously liberating and has changed my view of life, and of humanity.
My problem with religion, particularly the Abrahamic religions, is that is does not encourage intellectual honesty of that sort. The belief in an infallible deity pulling all the strings on the human stage, or an "infallible" holy book that cannot be contradicted, does not encourage intellectual honesty. Rather it encourages you align your thinking to accommodate your religious "world view", even when your experience of reality appears to contradict that view.

 

[metis]

I guess the Catholics just don't care how they are wrong, as long as they are wrong.

It seems that you are totally unaware of the very simple fact that religious beliefs in general are almost always unfalsifiable.

For example, if I were to state that our universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla that spewed out spit-wads, with some he ignited to become stars with his fiery breath, prove me wrong. Now, I can't prove myself right, but neither can you prove me wrong.

For you to assume-- and that all it is, namely an assumption on your part-- that Catholics are "wrong" and you are right is simply an ignoring of the fact that religious faith is religious faith, and faith doesn't depend or rely on objective facts.

BTW, why would you make an anti-Catholic statement anyway since it really doesn't relate to the OP or the rest of the discussion that was in progress? If I attacked your denomination out of the clear-blue sky, which wasn't being discussed, what would you think?

 

[Kemosloby]

It seems that you are totally unaware of the very simple fact that religious beliefs in general are almost always unfalsifiable.

For example, if I were to state that our universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla that spewed out spit-wads, with some he ignited to become stars with his fiery breath, prove me wrong. Now, I can't prove myself right, but neither can you prove me wrong.

For you to assume-- and that all it is, namely an assumption on your part-- that Catholics are "wrong" and you are right is simply an ignoring of the fact that religious faith is religious faith, and faith doesn't depend or rely on objective facts.

BTW, why would you make an anti-Catholic statement anyway since it really doesn't relate to the OP or the rest of the discussion that was in progress? If I attacked your denomination out of the clear-blue sky, which wasn't being discussed, what would you think?

You either read a different article or took the wrong pills.

 

[joe1776]

One trend we're seeing over the last couple of decades is a greater emphasis on getting involved doing things versus just going through services. Also, there's less and less emphasis on p.c. dogma, and I think this is likely to continue.

For example, about 4 months ago I revisited the first Catholic church I ever attended, which was 53 years ago doing my undergrad years. Back then, the mass was very quiet and solemn with most of the service in Latin, but this time it was vibrant, with much congregation involvement during the service and afterward, including preparing for a visitation by congregants from a sister church in El Salvador. Night and day.

If your experience was typical, I'd say that would certainly be a positive adaptation.

What do you think of Sayak's point in his Post 31?

 

[metis]

The teaching is not that salvation is absolutely conditional on being in the visible Church, but that anyone who wilfully rejects the Church cannot be saved. The Church is the means with which God bestows the graces necessary for salvation, but that does not mean that God Himself is bound to operate only within the confines of the visible Church.


Not at all, it is to accept the Scriptural data.

Jesus makes it clear that without accepting Him salvation is impossible. John 14:6 And that He established a Church. Matthew 16:18-19. Note that the Church has the power to bind and loose.



Except that as I mentioned before, the Church has always recognised that God is not bound to operate strictly within the confines of the visible Church.

It is never too late to repent, even for the most committed atheist. But if you should die in conscious and unrepentant rejection of God then that is to die in mortal sin. That is Church teaching and no pope (regardless of his personal opinion) has the authority to change it. The truth of the matter is pretty unambiguous.


The requirements have not and will not change. Anyone who dies in culpable rejection of the truth will not be saved.


That Catholics have done bad things does not detract from the reality of the Church as a divinely appointed institution. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the Church retain their force even if those who happen to be in the Church (or even run it) fall short of those teachings. Also, the Crusades are a complicated subject. To label them as a Catholic evil is a simplistic and self-serving reading of history. I'm sure as heck the Islamic world feels no remorse (and neither should we). Let's face it, no one alive today is actually scandalised over a bunch of long over medieval wars.


What you (or the world) thinks is credible is irrelevant. The truth isn't a democracy.

The Church will last until the end of the world. Again, Matthew 16:18. Even if its membership should shrink to a handful, it will ultimately triumph in the end.

The CC has gone through many changes and will continue to do so, so if one says he's a "traditionalist" it begs the question as to which supposed base is being selected. Even in Acts we see some pretty significant changes being made within the church, and the reality is that it never stopped changing.

Since I'm 72 years young , and even though I did not grow up Catholic or am one, I've seen a great many changes over the decades. Pope Francis' statements, whether one agrees with them or not, is simply a reflection of some of these more recent changes, especially more of the "throwing open the windows" as Pope John XXIII called for [paraphrased].

Only time will tell whether this trend continues, but personally I feel it's much better than what the CC and most other denominations and religions believed and taught many decades ago. I have no desire to go back to "the good old days" because the "good old days" were full of hatred, judgmentalism, bigotry, and the "my way or the highway" approach that led to so many problems over the centuries and decades.

IOW, I think there needs to be a tolerance of divergent beliefs without necessarily compromising our own personal beliefs. My Catholic wife and I have been married for over 50 years, we still today disagree on many things, but we never let that interfere with our relationship and commitment to each other.

 

[metis]

You either read a different article or took the wrong pills.

Actually, I did inadvertently respond incorrectly as I forgot what the main theme of the OP was, so you're right on that. But let me ask why you have to be so snarky when pointing this out? Is sarcasm and demeaning others a mark of your own faith because you do that a lot here at RF?

 

[metis]

What do you think of Sayak's point in his Post 31?

Actually I agree with him.

There's another factor involved, imo, and that is what is cultural here in the west where democracy is heavily embedded. Thus the more authoritarian approach, which actually was the approach of Jesus and the apostles, is not as acceptable, but the congregationalist model is.

We well know through history that, not only does religion affect culture, but also culture affects religion.

 

[joe1776]

Actually I agree with him.

There's another factor involved, imo, and that is what is cultural here in the west where democracy is heavily embedded. Thus the more authoritarian approach, which actually was the approach of Jesus and the apostles, is not as acceptable, but the congregationalist model is.

We well know through history that, not only does religion affect culture, but also culture affects religion.

I think it's fairly well established that the reasoning faculty of the human brain works like a bar magnet, repelling evidence against our cherished beliefs at one end and attracting supporting evidence at the other. Lots of us struggle against that to try to keep an open mind, but it's not easy. Do you suppose that the traditionalists of any belief system simply can't manage it thus they resist change?

What do you think?

 

[Kemosloby]

Actually, I did inadvertently respond incorrectly as I forgot what the main theme of the OP was, so you're right on that. But let me ask why you have to be so snarky when pointing this out? Is sarcasm and demeaning others a mark of your own faith because you do that a lot here at RF?

I am sorry if I wounded you too deeply.. My faith tells me that people don't become exactly like Jesus simply because they believe in Jesus, yet can call themselves Christians since they believe in Jesus.

 

[metis]

I think it's fairly well established that the reasoning faculty of the human brain works like a bar magnet, repelling evidence against our cherished beliefs at one end and attracting them at the other. Lots of us struggle against that to try to keep an open mind, but it's not easy.

Obviously I fully agree with you.

Do you suppose that the traditionalists of any belief system simply can't manage it thus they resist change?

What do you think?

There are always going to be traditionalists, and they very much have the right to their beliefs, but the overall trend, especially here in the west, is goiing the other way.

Will it ever stop going in this direction? We often talk about the "pendulum effect" in history, so I believe it at some point in time, and it'll be variable from one culture to another, it will undoubtedly do so. History tells us that in times of crisis there's a tendency towards nativism, namely to try and go back to the "good old days", which only rarely is ever successful.

Even personal crisis can do this as people are more inclined to try and grab on to something that more "solid", which also tends to feed the ego ("I'm right, and all you schmucks who disagree are wrong and stupid!"), thus exhibiting more intolerance that often tends to be more polarizing for societies. An unfortunate example of this is what we're seeing happening in Islam whereas different factions are all too often at each others' throats and sometimes the throats of others-- it's traditionalism and fundamentalism on steroids, and we see elements of this in all religions.

 

[metis]

I am sorry if I wounded you too deeply.. My faith tells me that people don't become exactly like Jesus simply because they believe in Jesus, yet can call themselves Christians since they believe in Jesus.

And Jesus taught compassion and justice/fairness as to how we should treat others, and I would hope that Christians would believe and act that way-- iow, not just talk-the-talk but also walk-the-walk.

 

[omega2xx]

A traditionalist is a person who supports the established customs and beliefs of his or her society or group, and does not want to change them. For example. within the Catholic Church, a group of traditionalists wants a return to positions as they were before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). One of those positions was that Heaven was reserved for Catholics only.

As I see it, the idea of belonging to an elite group favored by God made a strong appeal to the arrogant side of human nature. And so, I suspect these Catholic traditionalists of being highly infected with arrogance.

But now, Pope Francis, a good and humble man, has said that even atheists might get to Heaven with good works. Wow, imagine that! The traditionalists must have had strokes when they heard that.

But let's suppose that Pope Francis's position will lead not just Catholics but all Christians into a new era of harmony with their brothers and sisters of all beliefs. What happens to the requirements for Salvation? Why would anyone need the Catholic church or any other Christian faith?

Well, it sounds like the Church will maintain that it is still our best hope for entry to Heaven based on good works because it gives great moral guidance. Now, this is an interesting claim because it wasn't that long ago that Pope John Paul II made over one hundred public apologies during his reign. He asked forgiveness for the sins of his predecessors (including for the sinful Crusades).

Bottom Line: The Catholic Church, like Christianity on the whole, is doing what it can to adapt and survive in a changing, more sophisticated, social environment. But if the idea of Heaven as a country club reserved for Christians isn't going to be received as credible anymore then they can't turn back. And if their claims to high-grade moral guidance can't be backed with evidence, what's left? What will they have to offer in order to move forward and survive?

Please post your comments.

If the church adapts to secular reasoning and or current ideas, then it will not continue to exist. Conservative Christianity does not teach getting to heaven by good works. IMO that false theology is one reason the Catholic denomination is losing members.

 

[joe1776]

There are always going to be traditionalists, and they very much have the right to their beliefs, but the overall trend, especially here in the west, is goiing the other way.

Will it ever stop going in this direction? We often talk about the "pendulum effect" in history, so I believe it at some point in time, and it'll be variable from one culture to another, it will undoubtedly do so. History tells us that in times of crisis there's a tendency towards nativism, namely to try and go back to the "good old days", which only rarely is ever successful.

Even personal crisis can do this as people are more inclined to try and grab on to something that more "solid", which also tends to feed the ego ("I'm right, and all you schmucks who disagree are wrong and stupid!"), thus exhibiting more intolerance that often tends to be more polarizing for societies. An unfortunate example of this is what we're seeing happening in Islam whereas different factions are all too often at each others' throats and sometimes the throats of others-- it's traditionalism and fundamentalism on steroids, and we see elements of this in all religions.

Short-term maybe, but I doubt there is a long-term pendulum effect. I think, as incredible as it may seem, we humans actually are learning from experience. Consequently, progress in all areas of life is happening.

Progress requires change. Traditionalism and conservatism by their very nature resist change. So -- to Sayak's point -- maybe we have a growing population sticking to what they believe, and with population growth, their numbers are keeping pace while the people changing their minds are going in different directions.

I'll have to give this more thought.

 

[joe1776]

If the church adapts to secular reasoning and or current ideas, then it will not continue to exist. Conservative Christianity does not teach getting to heaven by good works. IMO that false theology is one reason the Catholic denomination is losing members.

Pope Francis only recently made those remarks. So, I don't think you can find them the cause of the Church's dwindling numbers. That's been happening for quite a while.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Progress requires change. Traditionalism and conservatism by their very nature resist change. So -- to Sayak's point -- maybe we have a growing population sticking to what they believe, and with population growth, their numbers are keeping pace while the people changing their minds are going in different directions.

Yes. Change is more likely across generations than within individual lives, just like biological evolution (individuals don't evolve biologically - changes are seen in the offspring).

I think that the following applies as much to this topic as to science:

• "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

 

[metis]

I think, as incredible as it may seem, we humans actually are learning from experience. Consequently, progress in all areas of life is happening.

I agree, and we're seeing more of a blending of different religious concepts, including secular ones. Many of us in the last two centuries have increasingly embraced science to the degree that it there's a conflict between the two, science often wins out. Thus, fewer and fewer people believe in scriptural inerrancy.

So -- to Sayak's point -- maybe we have a growing population sticking to what they believe, and with population growth, their numbers are keeping pace while the people changing their minds are going in different directions.

Agreed.

Pope Francis only recently made those remarks. So, I don't think you can find them the cause of the Church's dwindling numbers. That's been happening for quite a while.

The church is still growing here in the States, albeit slowly, but that increase has been fueled by immigration. Again, there's a culture conflict between how the RCC operates (authoritarian model) versus how we in the west operate politically and economically (democratic/capitalistic models), and polls of American Catholics show that the average congregant will often ignore church teachings if it conflicts with another paradigm they may have. An example is in the area of birth control, whereas well over 90% of Catholics say that it's all fine and dandy to use them.

 

[metis]

If the church adapts to secular reasoning and or current ideas, then it will not continue to exist.

Actually history indicates otherwise as old religions that simply could not adapt to new situations are either entirely gone or simply are only minor religions. Christianity, regardless of denomination, is a far cry from the original church in many different areas.

IMO that false theology is one reason the Catholic denomination is losing members.

Your opinion on "false theology", and it's only that, is truly noted. My experience is that so many who take this position really do not understand the basis of Catholic theology, nor do they know much at all about church history, nor do they understand the point-by-point intricacies of Catholic theology, and nor do they understand that any theology in general is highly subjective.

To put it another way, usually they're quite effectively brainwashed as I was when growing up in a fundamentalist Protestant church.

The reality is that the church is still growing here in the States, according to the last figures I've seen, but only because of immigration.

 

[Ponder This]

And if their claims to high-grade moral guidance can't be backed with evidence, what's left? What will they have to offer in order to move forward and survive?

If the church is meant to survive, then it will.
If not, then the dead branches get trimmed.
The fig tree that offers no fruit withers and dies.

 

[metis]

The fig tree that offers no fruit withers and dies.

And, imo, the main "fruit" is having compassion and justice/fairness for all, which we see being well said in the Sermon On the Mount, the Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matthew 25), and many other verses. Thus doing is more important than p.c. dogma, imo.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Actually, to some extent I'd say that is what characterises people, though I would say religion excels when it comes to the mental acrobatics required in order to justify changes in doctrinal or theological beliefs/declarations.

Religions can attract the worst kinds of people to leadership positions by offering cushy positions much like government jobs, so leadership is rarely an area of excellence. That is not always the case however.

Did I say that? No, we all susceptible to confirmation bias, to cultural bias, even to holding contradictory or nonsensical beliefs. The thing is to admit that, and then to go about changing your thinking to filter out as much of it as you can. I'm not saying "I've arrived" and so now I'm immune to irrational or illogical thought, but I've found that a bit of introspection and examination of what I believe with honest analysis to be tremendously liberating and has changed my view of life, and of humanity.

That sounds great, and I think I agree with that. That is a supremely Quaker-like point of view of the matter, too. I feel like we're brothers.

My problem with religion, particularly the Abrahamic religions, is that is does not encourage intellectual honesty of that sort. The belief in an infallible deity pulling all the strings on the human stage, or an "infallible" holy book that cannot be contradicted, does not encourage intellectual honesty. Rather it encourages you align your thinking to accommodate your religious "world view", even when your experience of reality appears to contradict that view.

I feel the need to point out that there are not really 'Abrahamic' religions. There are four very, extremely different and supremely not-the-same religions that are arranged under Abrahamic in the forum but which are not at all the same religion. I think Judaism which has multiple flavors, is quite dynamic and flexible. Christianity has gone through a long brittle phase, but its got some spring in it. The Bahai's are nothing if not flexible. Maybe you are addressing another religion that prides itself on its inflexibility and are perhaps attempting to generalize too much, maybe to support a difficult position you have taken that religion is what stands in the way of world harmony? I think religion is necessary for it, though not necessarily my religion.