Can Christianity Adapt to Survive?

[omega2xx]

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.

You are right church membership has been going down for many years, but it will never vanish. God has said He will always have believing remnant.

Believing in a God who can't be seen is a hard concept to accept. Also, public education has become more secular and that has had a big impact. Years ago even non-Christians accepted Christian values. That is no longer true.

Christians are not to be concerned, God is still in control. God has started many revivals over the years and He will do it again if it suits His purpose.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

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.

No problem with that bruv, I'm not here to pick fights or troll, I do like having debates and discussion though.

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.

Yes, of course it was a generalisation, and fair point I should have been more specific. I'm really thinking of the Christian Right in America, because they have genuine influence on political/social issues, and they are far from being 'flexible'. All I meant by "Abrahamic" was any religion that has its roots in the OT, so I'd include every Islamic theocracy in that. I am aware, of course, that the term "Christian" covers a whole spectrum of belief, and while I have far less of a problem with liberal Christians prepared to embrace secular values and reject a literal interpretation of the bible, and all that stance entails, I have to ask why? If you already are prepared to allow for a large slice of doubt about the historicity of religious claims, why not go that extra little couple of inches and embrace secular humanism? I fear that all liberal religious groups do is keep alive the credibility of more fundamentalist claims, even if the fundamentalists groups will point at people like Quakers and shout "apostate!". You enable them, even if it is only by demonstrating the power of Satan in warping the true gospel message!

 

[omega2xx]

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.

That is not true in conservative churches who preach sola scriptura. We accept that all Scripture is inspired by God and try to lived by what the Bible says.

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.
I know enough about Catholic theology to know they are wrong in many areas. The hold their non-Biblical traditions equal to Scripture and that is adding to Scripture which is forbidden. They are a very legalistic denominating and legalism is false teachings.

When the current pope and other before him say, Protestant churches aren't real churches, I lost all respect for him and he is the best one they have had for a long time. There is also a basic non Christian principle broken when priest would not report the sexual misconduct of other priest.

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

You don't really know what a fundamentalist church is, but I will tell you this, a church can't brainwash you if you stick to what the Bible says. I will acknowledge, it is hard for kids to reject the religion of their parents, It usually happened when they get older. I know what you mean by a "fundamentalist church." and they are a disgrace to Christianity, and you did the right thing by leaving it.

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.

The church is growing in several parts of the world, just not in America.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why do you think global harmony is inevitable? People keep saying that, but it doesn't happen. People claimed the invention of the telegraph would create world peace. It did not work. You have this idea that discarding religion will unify people, but that has been tried, too, and has not resulted in harmony.

Now the interesting thing here is, that ever since that first Telegraph Message on May 24th 1844, Mankinds Peace, Security and Unity was established and all knowledge was released.

The first telegraph message, that was taken from the Book of Numbers, quoted "What has God Wrought". The day before the Bab (Gate) had declared His Mission, he was the Promised Elijah, come to Herald the 'Day of the Lord', the Bab in the Torah was the Gate facing East, to Which the "Glory of the Lord" (Baha'u'llah), was to enter the temple through.

From that day to now, there has been a World Community being built on Peace, Love and Justice, that now do Learn War no More.

Why has not the world joined in as yet? Well that is free will and that is the way God allows all to live their life. We get to choose to follow His Guidance and laws, or choose not to

All the guidance for the "Most Great Peace" was given and rejected. All Guidance for the "Lesser Peace" was given, but only partly implemented by the League of Nations, then by the United Nations. Why mankind does not look to implement all this guidance, its peace and security is unattainable.

But great news, there is a Baha'i in every part of the world working with all others that want to find the Unity of Mankind, a unity that is happening.

Regards Tony

 

[joe1776]

...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.

Right. I think of the lack of obedience to authority as a more important factor than church attendance. I haven't seen the poll numbers for Europe, but those in the USA have shown a steady decline of lay Catholics in their obedience to Church teachings on controversial moral issues.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Christians are not to be concerned, God is still in control. God has started many revivals over the years and He will do it again if it suits His purpose.

God has always been Loyal to His Covernant and does not Leave mankind alone.

Mankind likes doing its own thing though and rejects God every time he sends a Message to Humanity.

The Holy books record this rejection.

Yes the Christains need to be concerned, they have repeated the rejection. 3 Messengers have been since Christ.

Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are all foretold in the Torah and New Testament. They have faced the same rejections that Jesus the Christ faced.

That is cause for great concern, is it not?

That is why we have the world of today.

Regards Tony

 

[omega2xx]

God has always been Loyal to His Covernant and does not Leave mankind alone.

Mankind likes doing its own thing though and rejects God every time he sends a Message to Humanity.

The Holy books record this rejection.

Yes the Christains need to be concerned, they have repeated the rejection. 3 Messengers have been since Christ.

Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are all foretold in the Torah and New Testament. They have faced the same rejections that Jesus the Christ faced.

Where are the mentioned in the Bible?

That is cause for great concern, is it not?

Not for me. I rejct them as coming from God also.

That is why we have the world of today.

Regards Tony

we have the world we have to day because many reject the only true God man has.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Where are they mentioned in the Bible?

Another subject, but the Faith of Muhammad is mentioned in Daniel and Revelation. The 'Two Witnesses' of Revelation with a Faith 'Clothed in Sackcloth' for 1260 Years was that of Muhammad and his Appointed Successor Ali. The year AH1260 is also the year AD1844. Muhammad was the First Woe, the Bab was the 2nd Woe and Baha'u'llah the 3rd Woe that came quickly.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah fulfill all Torah expectations for the 'Day of the Lord' and all New Testament promises for the End of the Age/Era.

Not for me. I reject them as coming from God also.

As God has given you free will to do. We thank God that there were people that accepted Jesus the Christ. In this is a warning for all humanity.

we have the world we have to day because many reject the only true God man has.

There is only One God and Christianity needs to be concerned as they have Made God exclusively theirs. Muhammad offered the Christians a warning that is what they were doing.

• People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a 'Trinity'—stop, that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. — Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa), ayat 171[3]

Regards Tony

 

[Brickjectivity]

No problem with that bruv, I'm not here to pick fights or troll, I do like having debates and discussion though.

Great and awesome, however discussion and mild debate are part of an open conversation in the general religious debates area.

...and while I have far less of a problem with liberal Christians prepared to embrace secular values and reject a literal interpretation of the bible, and all that stance entails, I have to ask why? If you already are prepared to allow for a large slice of doubt about the historicity of religious claims, why not go that extra little couple of inches and embrace secular humanism? I fear that all liberal religious groups do is keep alive the credibility of more fundamentalist claims, even if the fundamentalists groups will point at people like Quakers and shout "apostate!". You enable them, even if it is only by demonstrating the power of Satan in warping the true gospel message!

I do not mean to derail, but let me shed some light on the 'Liberal Christian' versus the 'Evangelical Christian' situation from my perspective. I with ease repulse the claim that I am not Biblical since you've not mentioned anyone who has the credentials to bring it. The Christian canon of the Bible hates Biblical literalism and fundamentalism, too; and Liberal Christians are I think probably the most Biblical Christians. The fundamentalists you refer to would have no business calling me unbiblical. These pay to have someone tell them what they want to hear. That is just flushing prophetic tradition down the toilet. Its not hard to be more compatible with it than they are.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Great and awesome, however discussion and mild debate are part of an open conversation in the general religious debates area.

.
Fine, just a question of semantics I think, I'm also happy to join in open conversation!

I do not mean to derail, but let me shed some light on the 'Liberal Christian' versus the 'Evangelical Christian' situation from my perspective. I with ease repulse the claim that I am not Biblical since you've not mentioned anyone who has the credentials to bring it. The Christian canon of the Bible hates Biblical literalism and fundamentalism, too; and Liberal Christians are I think probably the most Biblical Christians. The fundamentalists you refer to would have no business calling me unbiblical. These pay to have someone tell them what they want to hear. That is just flushing prophetic tradition down the toilet. Its not hard to be more compatible with it than they are.

Can't help but think that you are dangerously close to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy there brother, but putting that aside, I've just had a brief look at what Quakers believe so I have a few questions for you. When you refer to "God", do you mean (a definition I've heard many Christians use) a "disembodied mind" external to us? Is it a "thing" even if you cant touch it, or demonstrate it to exist? If your answer is yes, fair enough I can see why you pursue it, but if your answer is no, then my question would (again) be why? What do you get out of it? Not trying to trap you, just honest curiosity.

 

[Mister Emu]

But now, Pope Francis, a good and humble man, has said that even atheists might get to Heaven with good works.

That is an inaccurate understanding of what he said. No one gets to heaven with good works, but solely by the grace of God. Atheists who are humble of heart, earnestly seek the truth and fight to fill their heart with love might receive such grace.

Well, it sounds like the Church will maintain that it is still our best hope for entry to Heaven based on good works

No, it won't. It will maintain that the Church is the body of Christ our God and presides over the only guarantee God has offered for His grace.

Further, as a reminder, it is the conservative churches that grow and more secular branches are statistically the ones dying. The question should be, how are the Churches that attempted to move towards the "more sophisticated social environment" going to adapt to survive, if they care to at all.

 

[joe1776]

That is an inaccurate understanding of what he said. No one gets to heaven with good works, but solely by the grace of God. Atheists who are humble of heart, earnestly seek the truth and fight to fill their heart with love might receive such grace.....No, it won't. It will maintain that the Church is the body of Christ our God and presides over the only guarantee God has offered for His grace.

The interpretations I offered in the OP weren't mine originally. They were plucked from online Catholic web sites (a link to one provided earlier). But, differences of opinion, like yours, among Catholics, are expected obviously.

Further, as a reminder, it is the conservative churches that grow and more secular branches are statistically the ones dying. The question should be, how are the Churches that attempted to move towards the "more sophisticated social environment" going to adapt to survive, if they care to at all.

This was discussed earlier in the posts between Metis and me if you'd like to read other opinions on this point.

 

[metis]

That is not true in conservative churches who preach sola scriptura. We accept that all Scripture is inspired by God and try to lived by what the Bible says.

The span of history I was referring to usually is hundreds to thousands of years, plus I'm covering the religions as a whole. "Conservative Christianity" as you're describing (fundamentalist Protestantism), is not even 200 years old and only covers a relatively small fraction of Christians internationally.

 

[Glaurung]

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.

There are two different types of change. Gradual change over the course of centuries, and imposed radical change by the top. To be a traditionalist is to oppose the latter. The Tridentine Mass for example developed organically over the centuries, while the Novus Ordo was a 1970's imposition.

To claim that we traditionalists are against change is a misrepresentation. We're against the ideologically driven impositions which break with tradition.

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].

Cool, and I'm 27 so any claims of nostalgia for the "good old days" doesn't work. I'm a traditionalist because I don't find the 1970's all that compelling. Keep your tambourines and ugly felt banners, I'll take the timeless Latin of the ancient western Church.

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.

And I have no desire to be stuck in a boomer imposed perpetual 1970's. I have no interest in what you regard as "hateful", and while charity is a good thing liberals are just as guilty of the lack of it. The Novus Ordo was imposed, and to this day in my own parish we've been harassed by old boomer women who have barged into Mass screaming that the Traditional Mass is evil.

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.

I never implied otherwise.

 

[metis]

Right. I think of the lack of obedience to authority as a more important factor than church attendance. I haven't seen the poll numbers for Europe, but those in the USA have shown a steady decline of lay Catholics in their obedience to Church teachings on controversial moral issues.

In Europe, regular attendance on a weekend is typically 10% or less, and this is also true with most Protestant countries and the Anglican Church in the UK.

I don't lose any sleep over people attending services but deciding to do what they think is right, but I do find it unfortunate that all too many never attend any services and probably do some serious reading on religion and/or philosophy. I think we all need some guidance at times-- better too much information versus too little.

 

[metis]

To claim that we traditionalists are against change is a misrepresentation. We're against the ideologically driven impositions which break with tradition.

Not all "traditionalists" are the same, so some of my remarks really are more generic. My scope was broad, iow. And in some ways, I'm a "traditionalist" myself, but not in most. I'm comfortable where I attend with my wife even though I'm not Catholic nor Christian. [you might check out my faith statement at the bottom of the page here]

BTW, being a "traditionalist" is actually an example of being "ideologically driven" because it's an agenda.

Cool, and I'm 27 so any claims of nostalgia for the "good old days" doesn't work.

Again, it seems as if you were taking my remarks in a personal way. Since I'm an anthropologist, my scope, unless I specify otherwise, tends to be quite broad geographically and time-wise.

Also, you expressed your opinion of likes and dislikes, so please allow me to do the same without attacking me.

And I have no desire to be stuck in a boomer imposed perpetual 1970's. I have no interest in what you regard as "hateful", and while charity is a good thing liberals are just as guilty of the lack of it.

Then let me recommend not attending "boomer imposed" churches.

Nor is this a "liberal" or "conservative" thingy as far as I'm concerned. Also, if you have "no interest in what regard", then maybe just ignore my posts.

Seems to me you have a chip on your shoulder, and I don't think that's much conducive to any serious discussion. It's often just best to avoid religions, denominations, or even people we may not like, so it's your problem if you chose not to. IOW, maybe don't take things so personally, and if you don't like what I post maybe put me on "ignore".

 

[Glaurung]

From his comment, it seems that Pope Francis disagrees.But you're saying he's wrong. Is that it?

Firstly, he did not say what you think he did. Secondly, the pope in expressing his own opinions is not the Magisterium. I don't think you have any understanding on how Catholicism actually works.

When you say that the moral teachings of the church "retain their force," what does that mean? What force could they possibly have for an intelligent mind aware of the past moral failures of the men who run the church?

An intelligent mind that makes the distinction between the Church and the people within the Church.

For example, the teaching that fornication is a sin doesn't become any less true simply because your parish priest gets caught in a sexual liaison.

I didn't label the Crusades sinful. It was John Paul II who did that in his apology.

So? That doesn't change my point. Apologises for medieval wars is silly.

I agree that the truth isn't a democracy but the truth unfailingly makes sense. Why would an all-knowing God set the Church up to fail?

The Church hasn't failed. It's been a bumpy ride but though the better and worse of two-thousand years, it's still here.

 

[Mister Emu]

The interpretations I offered in the OP weren't mine originally.

I read the link and nowhere in it did it suggest that Pope Francis said atheists can get to heaven by doing good, as you claimed. The authors of the link offered that they believe that God will judge on good done and values held, but never projected that onto the Pope's words.

As the Church has never once in her history taught that salvation is attainable through meritorius effort, and it has taught exactly the opposite, that no merit of our own can bring salvation, I doubt very much that the Pope was saying such.

This was discussed earlier in the posts between Metis and me if you'd like to read other opinions on this point.

I read your exchange and didn't really see it addressed that in fact it is not the traditionalists who are in danger. That the churches who have moved to be more as you recommend are dying and that traditional churches are statistically more likely to grow.

Perhaps, I misunderstood what I was reading. Could you state you other opinion on this point?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Can't help but think that you are dangerously close to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy there brother, but putting that aside, I've just had a brief look at what Quakers believe so I have a few questions for you.

I don't think so, because I'm merely saying that they cannot say I'm unbiblical.

When you refer to "God", do you mean (a definition I've heard many Christians use) a "disembodied mind" external to us? Is it a "thing" even if you cant touch it, or demonstrate it to exist? If your answer is yes, fair enough I can see why you pursue it, but if your answer is no, then my question would (again) be why? What do you get out of it? Not trying to trap you, just honest curiosity.

First, since we're talking about whether I'm Biblical or not, according to the Bible the divinity is invisible and spiritual, not physical. I think a disembodied mind implies physicality, so does calling God a thing. In answer to your question 'Why' its personal. Physically I am inspired by the people I've encountered, by the things I've seen accomplished, by ideas about the future, things I envision, pain I've seen and all kinds of thoughts. It is not one thing. I do not think that people are strongly attracted to God, including myself. I think (and the idea comes from the Bible) we each have God in us, just the amount that we are willing to be and to have; and allowing God to be in us is not easy and does not happen without losing some of our selfishness. I sometimes think of God as pinpoints of light shining out of people (just as much as anyone will allow), and then I imagine all those pinpoints shining from many different people. That is analogous to working with people towards selfless goals, and I think it is about the pinnacle of spirituality that a selfish creature such as a human person can attain. Goodness knows people have tried to do better and have destroyed themselves in the process. You can, for example, feed the hungry by going hungry yourself; and its a very spiritual thing that you cannot sustain. You have to eat.

Detecting God seems impossible, sort of like detecting gravity waves nearly is impossible. Seeing God is a process that involves your entire self, and you have to allow yourself to be used by God. That is the only way to detect God that I know of, and I believe this is the God which the Christian Bible talks about 100%. It talks about the unseen, the undetectable God. It is completely relevant and reasonable for someone to ask "Why believe in God at all?" and for someone else to say "Maybe you are just making it all up." However, I do believe. Not only that, I'm a longtime Bible student and have wandered the fields of this tiny universe all of my life tapping and knocking and seeing things; and I don't give a toot if some uneducated person who pays to have their ears scratched thinks that they have a leg up or thinks God is physical. They are not going to impress me with that claptrap.

 

[joe1776]

Firstly, he did not say what you think he did. Secondly, the pope in expressing his own opinions is not the Magisterium.

If he didn't say what I thought he said, why do you feel it necessary to stress that it's his own opinion?

An intelligent mind that makes the distinction between the Church and the people within the Church. For example, the teaching that fornication is a sin doesn't become any less true simply because your parish priest gets caught in a sexual liaison.

That's a false analogy because the parish priest had nothing to do with making fornication a sin. But suppose a Catholic's conscience feels nothing wrong with consensual sex with a woman, neither married and neither cheating. Why should he ignore his conscience and obey a rule made by men who were sinful?

. Apologises for medieval wars is silly.

I always thought the Church looked weak when it tried to make excuses for its past mistakes rather than admit them. I respected John Paul II for his confessions.