God. We have a problem, or do we?

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Did you by any chance attend a private Christian university?

University of Texas at Austin. 

[Brisketexan 105381]

35 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

This has been the way through y’all of the history of the church. Ebbs and flows, revivals. Reorientation. The only thing constant in our existence is change and adaptations. 

That's actually been a rebuttal my wife has thrown against those who are wringing their hands about losing what the church is, to become something new -- "wait a minute, fuckers -- isn't 'resurrection' kind of the central point of our theology?  Why are you afraid of resurrection, we're resurrection people?"

Also, my wife cusses as much as I do.  Maybe more.

Edited March 31, 2021 by Brisketexan

[BearSchlong 8114]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

My wife is a minister....and people outside the church walls are her ministry.  She would have a shitload to say on this.  When I have more time, I'll share some of her thoughts/positions.

But in short, the institution of "the church" is dying.  Most of its wounds are self-inflicted.  My wife is of a cohort of pastors -- good people.  The kind of people you would want as your pastor.....who are not spending much time inside church walls these days, and don't have much of an inclination to go back.  These aren't just parishioners, these are actual pastors.

All of that said, the belief in God, the desire to explore faith and belief, remains and may be even stronger than before, because it's being driven by hunger and desire for the spirit, as opposed to a sense of obligation or obedience.  What will become of that?  Who knows.

But the institution of The Church is dying....and as that process finishes (it's almost finished -- that doesn't mean that all organized churches will go away, but rather, it means that they will reach a profound nadir)....the "rebuilding" has already begun.   The thing is, nobody really knows what they're building yet.  They're just feeding the spiritually hungry, meeting them out in the world where they are.  Which is the exact beginning that there was AT the beginning of the church -- going out into the world, and feeding those who were hungry and sought nourishment.

Where we are isn't bad or good.  It just is.

I've recently learned to accept that.

Your wife was on my mind recently as my Presbyterian church just completed an exhaustive search for a new pastor.  She just moved here from PA and we're 2 Sundays in and I really like her first 2 sermons.  But we've got a dwindling, elderly membership and without the endowment established over the last 70 years there's no way we could afford her.

Hell, we sing 300-500 year old hymns to pipe organ music.  But we're still the liberal AF PCUSA which I like.  Humble people.

I would have never chosen that church, my grandparents were charter members in 1953 and donated the real estate and built the sanctuary. I find solace in the continuity.

Edited March 31, 2021 by BearSchlong

[Newdoc 3453]

Props to those engaging in discussion but I swear there is some kind of timer for whatever iteration of Hornfans/Hornscat/Surly that pops up a religion thread every 6 months and we get predictable discussion that follows a pattern with questions, criticism, smart assisms and answers that look like the last thread that popped up. The internet is full of good logical discussion on these topics without the poo flinging. 

As to the majority tipping to non house of worship or whatever, I don't think our society is any better off than 5, 10 or 20 years ago. Actually, besides the murder rate, we are kind of sucking as humans, especially to each other and ourselves.

[Brisketexan 105381]

5 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:

I would have never chosen that church, my grandparents were charter members in 1953 and donated the real estate and built the sanctuary. I find solace in the continuity.

There's a whole lot to be said for why you go there.  There's a term the Presbyterians used that I always loved -- "a long line of saints."  To be part of that long line of saints is something meaningful, and connectional.

Faith has been an integral part of my family's life for centuries.  My ancestors carried the family rosaries with them as they crossed the ocean from Spain, and Ireland.  My mexican grandmother walked the hall, praying the rosary as she was in cancer treatment 45 years ago at MD Anderson.  My daughter has that rosary now.  God and our connection to God is a touchstone for us.

That doesn't mean that we all would have seen eye-to-eye on all matters of theology.  We wouldn't have.  But we are connected by our faith.  We come from a long line of saints.  And oh, do we come from a long line of sinners.

The traditions matter to me.  I've posted it before, but every damned year, as we sing Silent Night at the Christmas Eve service -- and I've done it in the Catholic church, Methodist, and PCUSA.....I can't help but stop singing because my voice breaks and the tears are flowing.  And part of that is because I remember sitting in the pews doing the same with my ailing grandmother's hand in mine.  And I have done it holding the hands of my young children.  I have watched lives come, and go, marked by the singing of that carol.  And the light remains -- always the light.  Flickering, brightening, dimming.  But there.  It will be there after I am gone.  When my children hold the hands of their children and grandchildren.  To them, I will be one of that long line of saints...and sinners.  That brings me peace.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

16 hours ago, Anastasis said:

We are not far apart, esp wrt to the latter. 

What I had in mind when I posted that but didn't convey because of 2 bottles of devil's backbone, is that to me anyway the teachings of christ are generally good and helpful.  Many of the venues that proclaim those teachings, not so much, they seem more concerned with increasing the flock, shearing the flock and counting the fleeced proceeds than actually helping people understand how to become better people rather than just belonging to a conforming, profitable tribe.   I know that's a broad brush and I've seen church organizations that actually do work well.  It's just frustrating to see the ones that don't, dominate because of $$.  

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2095]

1 hour ago, BearSchlong said:

Your wife was on my mind recently

same

[Celery Man 21001]

1 hour ago, Newdoc said:

As to the majority tipping to non house of worship or whatever, I don't think our society is any better off than 5, 10 or 20 years ago. Actually, besides the murder rate, we are kind of sucking as humans, especially to each other and ourselves.

If I'm interested in improving our society and I'm trying to find where the light is shining from, it ain't the church.

[Brisketexan 105381]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

If I'm interested in improving our society and I'm trying to find where the light is shining from, it ain't the church.

Now you sound a WHOLE lot like my wife.

[WhatTheBuck 28801]

4 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

University of Texas at Austin. 

High school maybe? No big deal and nothing against CS Lewis, but in my experience the people that reference him tend to come from backgrounds where he’s the only sci-fi/fantasy author they’ve been exposed to. Stranger in a Strange Land won’t appear on their reading lists.

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

There's a whole lot to be said for why you go there.  There's a term the Presbyterians used that I always loved -- "a long line of saints."  To be part of that long line of saints is something meaningful, and connectional.

Faith has been an integral part of my family's life for centuries.  My ancestors carried the family rosaries with them as they crossed the ocean from Spain, and Ireland.  My mexican grandmother walked the hall, praying the rosary as she was in cancer treatment 45 years ago at MD Anderson.  My daughter has that rosary now.  God and our connection to God is a touchstone for us.

That doesn't mean that we all would have seen eye-to-eye on all matters of theology.  We wouldn't have.  But we are connected by our faith.  We come from a long line of saints.  And oh, do we come from a long line of sinners.

The traditions matter to me.  I've posted it before, but every damned year, as we sing Silent Night at the Christmas Eve service -- and I've done it in the Catholic church, Methodist, and PCUSA.....I can't help but stop singing because my voice breaks and the tears are flowing.  And part of that is because I remember sitting in the pews doing the same with my ailing grandmother's hand in mine.  And I have done it holding the hands of my young children.  I have watched lives come, and go, marked by the singing of that carol.  And the light remains -- always the light.  Flickering, brightening, dimming.  But there.  It will be there after I am gone.  When my children hold the hands of their children and grandchildren.  To them, I will be one of that long line of saints...and sinners.  That brings me peace.

And that is one of the great tragedies when I see someone reject the faith of their family that they were brought up in.  It severs all that in a really sad way.

[workswithseed 2111]

I always hear about CS Lewis, but I hear no one talk about GK Chesterton. I just found out about him a few months ago, and I need to read up on him.

Edited March 31, 2021 by workswithseed

[formermav43 4606]

I think of Lewis as an apologist more than a fantasy author, personally.

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

4 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

What I had in mind when I posted that but didn't convey because of 2 bottles of devil's backbone, is that to me anyway the teachings of christ are generally good and helpful.  Many of the venues that proclaim those teachings, not so much, they seem more concerned with increasing the flock, shearing the flock and counting the fleeced proceeds than actually helping people understand how to become better people rather than just belonging to a conforming, profitable tribe.   I know that's a broad brush and I've seen church organizations that actually do work well.  It's just frustrating to see the ones that don't, dominate because of $$.  

I've gone to a ton of churches in my life.  I've never been a member of a church like that. I think it's overstated. 

All that said- we moved out into the country and went to 10 different churches trying to find one that we fit in before giving up and returning to our old church (35 minutes away).  There was some stuff that was, quite frankly, shocking to me in some of the places we went.  Ugly, hateful, bigoted, political, just a lot of bad stuff.  And then there was the fact that theologically at a couple places the guy just didn't have the chops to be up there leading a congregation imo.   It was a bit eye opening.  But seriously, I've been a member at 10 different churches in my life (we moved a ton) that spanned different denominations and didn't see any of what you are talking about. At all.  Or what a lot of other people complain about.   

All I can say is that it's not all churches, and I'd argue not most churches, but there are certainly some churches, maybe many, that are a problem.  And that fits with Johns letters from Christ in Revelation to the 7 churches.  We've been getting it wrong since the beginning of the church 2,000 years ago.  Go back to the jews in the time of judges and we can see pretty clearly we've been getting it wrong for 4500 years. The fact that we still continue to get it wrong makes us... human.  

[Newdoc 3453]

2 hours ago, Celery Man said:

If I'm interested in improving our society and I'm trying to find where the light is shining from, it ain't the church.

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

33 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

High school maybe? No big deal and nothing against CS Lewis, but in my experience the people that reference him tend to come from backgrounds where he’s the only sci-fi/fantasy author they’ve been exposed to. Stranger in a Strange Land won’t appear on their reading lists.

Nah, public school all the way.  Although he dabbled in Sci-fi/fantasy I'd categorize him much more seriously as an apologist as opposed to a fantasy writer.  As far as fantasy and sci fi- I don't know- Tolkein, all the Hitchhikers guides to the galaxy, Harry Potter, Stephen King Dark Tower series (I'd count that in the genre), A song of ice and fire series, Lloyd Alexander Prydian works, Wrinkle in Time series, some of Dean Koontz- in my opinion- should be considered Sci Fi, some more of Stephen King maybe Sci Fi, Brave New World, 1984 and some other shit in school that's marked Sci Fi but I don't typically think of it as such.  I've not read stranger in a strange land- but truly I'm not a huge Sci Fi/Fantasy fan, though I have read a lot of that in my lifetime.  

My reading list is long and distinguished, like my johnson.  Not really all that distinguished, I read a lot but I read mostly for fun, as escapism to retreat into a story and turn my brain off from all other things, or I also like historical fiction plus a well written biography on someone interesting. Or a subject I'm interested- especially as it relates to traveling somewhere- like when I went to Australia I read "the Tyranny of distance" for example which talked about how Australia's culture was influenced by being so far away.  Then there's the pseudo intellectual books like Gladwell that I confess to liking- but not really sure how true that is.  Sports books.  But nothing that's going to be considered high brow or "the next great American novel."   I mean- did I read the Kite Runner?  Or the Alchemist?  Or other books like that which get popular and people talk up?  Sure.  But I'd prefer Clancy, WEB Griffin or Clive Cussler over that kind of stuff- something that I can turn my brain off with.  I'm sure I've got over 1,000 books in my book case- probably 80 Christian focused specifically.   

Edited March 31, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

19 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I think of Lewis as an apologist more than a fantasy author, personally.

Absolutely.  Beat me to it while I was typing.  Anyone I think pretty serious about developing a reading list about their faith probably views him chiefly this way, inside the church. People who don't read church books view him as the guy who wrote Chronicles of Narnia (which if that's all he ever did he could claim making the world much better for that alone).

What's funny is that his chief thing was  he was a scholar on medieval times.  That's what he got paid to do as his day job.  The Chronicles of Narnia was basically just a lark to tell Tolkein to loosen up- you can pump out this fantasy genre in a fortnight.  And the apolgetics obviously came after his very late in life conversion.  Pretty fascinating dude. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Religious people creep me out.

[WhatTheBuck 28801]

25 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I think of Lewis as an apologist more than a fantasy author, personally.

I know he’s not just a sci-fi/fantasy author but I don’t have much interest in him other than those works and not even that since I was a teen. 

[formermav43 4606]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I know he’s not just a sci-fi/fantasy author but I don’t have much interest in him other than those works and not even that since I was a teen. 

Sure, I get that. I was just thinking on a thread like this, someone referencing him might be coming from the same place I mentioned.

[sidis 9832]

5 hours ago, KYHorn said:

Then all I can say is investigate the matter for yourselves. There are thousands of excellent studies on the topic. If you value science and empiricism, look at the data. I'm not saying this means religion/spirituality is therefore true or right, I was just responding to the claim that the decline of religion in the US is a good thing. 

perhaps you could do everyone the favor of providing links to this overwhelming evidence to consider.

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

27 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I know he’s not just a sci-fi/fantasy author but I don’t have much interest in him other than those works and not even that since I was a teen. 

I wouldn't think you'd have any interest in him after a teen.  I start reading Chronicles of Narnia to my kids when they are in Kindergarten.  My 10 year old is now reading them again for herself.  I think it's an elementary school kid story- though I've certainly enjoyed reading them all again to my kids as an adult.  Same with Harry Potter or FOTR or something like that. 

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

25 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Sure, I get that. I was just thinking on a thread like this, someone referencing him might be coming from the same place I mentioned.

It was me, and certainly that's where I was coming at it from when I mentioned Lewis.  I think that was from "the Problem with Pain" or some such.  I absolutely love Mere Christianity- one of my favorite books ever written on the Christian life and what that should look like- and what we have as ties that bind us all. 

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

21 minutes ago, sidis said:

perhaps you could do everyone the favor of providing links to this overwhelming evidence to consider.

From an anecdotal perspective I can't imagine that he's not correct and it isn't a net benefit both individually and to society to have church membership.  That said- I'd bet you could also find, by the same perspective that it would be a net benefit to be a member of the Kiwanas or a book club or any kind of group that promotes social interaction.  Agreed with you that I'd like to see the study. 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Wulaw Horn

[sidis 9832]

8 hours ago, formermav43 said:

I honestly have no idea what you’re arguing here.

Texts should always be read in context. And outside of maybe some radical deconstructionist types on the one hand and people who don’t want any of that fancy book learning on the other, you’re not going to see any disagreement on that.

i could be wrong but i think what he was inarticulately setting forth was the the tension that exists between the acceptance of the sacred texts as anywhere from divinely inspired to the solo scriptura infallibility of these texts as the definitive word of god (and everything in between) depending on your christianity mascot - and the apparent need to contextualize them based on the cultural zeitgeist at the time.  if the christian personal god is timeless, creator of all things, just, etc.., then social and and cultural justice and benevolence, as well as guidance as to what is right and wrong in this short and temporary existence should not be contextual but timeless.  the argument he is making is that holding god to such a low bar because it just happened to reveal itself at this tiny interval of time after billions of years of universal evolution of the cosmos, life, self-aware life, etc... as the time it needed to give spiritual guidance to this tiny sliver of its creation at a time when people were more focused on the animal nature of survival seems short-sighted and not worthy of a timeless creator of all things.

at least that is what i think he is arguing.

[sidis 9832]

6 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

From an anecdotal perspective I can't imagine that he's not correct and it isn't a net benefit both individually and to society to have church membership.  That said- I'd bet you could also find, by the same perspective that it would be a net benefit to be a member of the Kiwanas or a book club or any kind of group that promotes social interaction.  Agreed with you that I'd like to see the study. 

from an anecdotal perspective, this chick disagrees. 

i am not asking about anecdotes.  ky made some very definitive claims about scholarship and empirical evidence that reaches very definitive conclusions and i am curious as to what he is specifically relying on to reach that conclusion.  i am not saying he is wrong, i just want to know what standards were employed by the researchers to define fellowship in what he is relying upon.  it is very different to say that people that feel part of a community are happier than to say the existence of the church makes the world a better place.

[formermav43 4606]

4 minutes ago, sidis said:

i could be wrong but i think what he was inarticulately setting forth was the the tension that exists between the acceptance of the sacred texts as anywhere from divinely inspired to the solo scriptura infallibility of these texts as the definitive word of god (and everything in between) depending on your christianity mascot - and the apparent need to contextualize them based on the cultural zeitgeist at the time.  if the christian personal god is timeless, creator of all things, just, etc.., then social and and cultural justice and benevolence, as well as guidance as to what is right and wrong in this short and temporary existence should not be contextual but timeless.  the argument he is making is that holding god to such a low bar because it just happened to reveal itself at this tiny interval of time after billions of years of universal evolution of the cosmos, life, self-aware life, etc... as the time it needed to give spiritual guidance to this tiny sliver of its creation at a time when people were more focused on the animal nature of survival seems short-sighted and not worthy of a timeless creator of all things.

at least that is what i think he is arguing.

Ok. That I understand. But I would suggest that is more of an issue of hermeneutics, and I was talking strictly about exegesis. 

[Brisketexan 105381]

From an anecdotal perspective I can't imagine that he's not correct and it isn't a net benefit both individually and to society to have church membership.  That said- I'd bet you could also find, by the same perspective that it would be a net benefit to be a member of the Kiwanas or a book club or any kind of group that promotes social interaction.  Agreed with you that I'd like to see the study. 

This. One of the values of religious belief and “the church” as an is as a focal point for community. Check out “Bowling Alone.” This has been an observed issue for at least 20 years.

It’s not that it’s the only institution that provides that, but traditionally, it’s been a big one. The loss of it, without a replacement, makes us worse off.

Not that modern American “religion” doesn’t bring plenty of bad and pain with it. Just realize that there are entries on both sides of the ledger.

[formermav43 4606]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

This. One of the values of religious belief and “the church” as an is as a focal point for community. Check out “Bowling Alone.” This has been an observed issue for at least 20 years.

It’s not that it’s the only institution that provides that, but traditionally, it’s been a big one. The loss of it, without a replacement, makes us worse off.

Not that modern American “religion” doesn’t bring plenty of bad and pain with it. Just realize that there are entries on both sides of the ledger.

That's not the first time "Bowling Alone" has been mentioned in this thread. I was just reading today a review of a new book Putnam has published, "The Upswing," that purports to explore how we went from an "I" society at the end of the 19th century to a "we" society and then swung back to "I" at the end of the 20th century/beginning of 21st - and how we can apply lessons from that earlier era to swing back.

Not sure if anyone has read that one yet (I haven't). But it seems like it could be worth checking out.

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This. One of the values of religious belief and “the church” as an is as a focal point for community. Check out “Bowling Alone.” This has been an observed issue for at least 20 years.

It’s not that it’s the only institution that provides that, but traditionally, it’s been a big one. The loss of it, without a replacement, makes us worse off.

Not that modern American “religion” doesn’t bring plenty of bad and pain with it. Just realize that there are entries on both sides of the ledger.

Yeah- I thought my statement that you quoted was  bland and self obvious enough to get a nod and a move on, but no, we get a letter from some church somewhere that pissed someone off. It's not like you can't also make enemies in the Lions club or on the little league board, or at CTJ's feats of strength he's got planned for September, b/c we are humans and can fuck up any human interaction anywhere, but in the main you are better off with those interactions than without.  

[sidis 9832]

2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Ok. That I understand. But I would suggest that is more of an issue of hermeneutics, and I was talking strictly about exegesis. 

but it may apply to both depending on who and what you think truly authored it both physically and metaphysically.  any sane person with a remote familiarity of history and specifically, the history of the bible in the formation of the torah, the gospels over the following centuries, paul's work, and the early catholic church understands the history of how it came to be and that the physical manifestation of it was not only human, but also subject to human processes including politics...but one cannot ignore the association with the sacred text as being anywhere from written by to endorsed by the supreme being of choice...and the expectation that such a thing would be separate from human social development. 

anyway, if i dwell in this thread much longer, my good friend axiom of choice will undoubtedly smell it from some other corner of the internet and i will get drawn into playing the role of kant to his godel and leibniz to debate the nuances of the third and fourth axioms of the ontological and cosmological arguments for the thousandth time on this site and its predecessors so i am going to eject from this...

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

6 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

That's not the first time "Bowling Alone" has been mentioned in this thread. I was just reading today a review of a new book Putnam has published, "The Upswing," that purports to explore how we went from an "I" society at the end of the 19th century to a "we" society and then swung back to "I" at the end of the 20th century/beginning of 21st - and how we can apply lessons from that earlier era to swing back.

Not sure if anyone has read that one yet (I haven't). But it seems like it could be worth checking out.

I think one of the biggest things messing up America (besides social media of course) is the lack of an enemy that threatens our very existence.  When you face an existential threat it's pretty easy to pull together and go all for one and one for all. Since we've lost that in WW2 and during the cold war we have no unifying principal or thing that we must pull together and beat.  There's nothing more likely to make a rugged individualist into a collective action guy than threatening his very existence where he must band together with his neighbors to survive.  Does that fix things for everyone?  Nah.  But the vast majority I'm sure it does.  

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

but it may apply to both depending on who and what you think truly authored it both physically and metaphysically.  any sane person with a remote familiarity of history and specifically, the history of the bible in the formation of the torah, the gospels over the following centuries, paul's work, and the early catholic church understands the history of how it came to be and that the physical manifestation of it was not only human, but also subject to human processes including politics...but one cannot ignore the association with the sacred text as being anywhere from written by to endorsed by the supreme being of choice...and the expectation that such a thing would be separate from human social development. 

anyway, if i dwell in this thread much longer, my good friend axiom of choice will undoubtedly smell it from some other corner of the internet and i will get drawn into playing the role of kant to his godel and leibniz to debate the nuances of the third and fourth axioms of the ontological and cosmological arguments for the thousandth time on this site and its predecessors so i am going to eject from this...

Axiom of choice is either so much smarter than I am that he's speaking a language I can't understand, or I'm just not smart enough to realize he's speaking nonsense and don't recognize it as such. I'm going with the first option.  Though both options leave me feeling dumb.  

[sidis 9832]

4 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think one of the biggest things messing up America (besides social media of course) is the lack of an enemy that threatens our very existence.  When you face an existential threat it's pretty easy to pull together and go all for one and one for all. Since we've lost that in WW2 and during the cold war we have no unifying principal or thing that we must pull together and beat.  There's nothing more likely to make a rugged individualist into a collective action guy than threatening his very existence where he must band together with his neighbors to survive.  Does that fix things for everyone?  Nah.  But the vast majority I'm sure it does.  

the cold war created so much undeniable, long lasting pain in a first, second, and tertiary order sense for virtually all the third world from central american victims of proxy wars, to the decimation of southeast asia, to the fundamental roots of the middle east becoming so mindfucked from afghanistan, iran, iraw, syria, and on and on and on, that this may be one of the most misguided and unaware posts you have ever made.  the cold war did not "fix" things for the vast majority of the world, or america.  this may be your metaphorical drive an rv into a fucking overpass bridge post of all time.

i do not subscribe to this line of thinking and even if it was true, we have no shortage of enemies...both conceptual and physical.

[WhatTheBuck 28801]

32 minutes ago, sidis said:

from an anecdotal perspective, this chick disagrees. 

i am not asking about anecdotes.  ky made some very definitive claims about scholarship and empirical evidence that reaches very definitive conclusions and i am curious as to what he is specifically relying on to reach that conclusion.  i am not saying he is wrong, i just want to know what standards were employed by the researchers to define fellowship in what he is relying upon.  it is very different to say that people that feel part of a community are happier than to say the existence of the church makes the world a better place.

Of all the fucking nerve. That letter is outrageous. 

Edited March 31, 2021 by WhatTheBuck

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

the cold war created so much undeniable, long lasting pain in a first, second, and tertiary order sense for virtually all the third world from central american victims of proxy wars, to the decimation of southeast asia, to the fundamental roots of the middle east becoming so mindfucked from afghanistan, iran, iraw, syria, and on and on and on, that this may be one of the most misguided and unaware posts you have ever made.  the cold war did not "fix" things for the vast majority of the world, or america.  this may be your metaphorical drive an rv into a fucking overpass bridge post of all time.

i do not subscribe to this line of thinking and even if it was true, we have no shortage of enemies...both conceptual and physical.

I wasn't speaking of the rest of the world with the cold war, and I would think by the context of what we were talking about that it was pretty clear I was speaking about unifying the country.   You know, something that every demagogue does (create an outside existential threat) down to, oh, I don't know, every single sports coach ever that tells his team "nobody believes in you" or "it's us against the world".  That was literally the context but feel free to turn it into something it pretty obviously wasn't.  

Or if you want me to apologize and say "hey- I wasn't really saying the cold war was awesome and I wish we could get it back" rather I was saying "it united us- along with WW2- in a way that nothing else could" then I guess I phrased that shittily there you go. I said it. Mea Culpa  

[Brisketexan 105381]

Yeah- I thought my statement that you quoted was  bland and self obvious enough to get a nod and a move on, but no, we get a letter from some church somewhere that pissed someone off. It's not like you can't also make enemies in the Lions club or on the little league board, or at CTJ's feats of strength he's got planned for September, b/c we are humans and can fuck up any human interaction anywhere, but in the main you are better off with those interactions than without.  

What’s making American “Christianity” particularly shitty isn’t the petty infighting you see in any organization (“how DARE Betty take over flower arrangements - that’s MY job!). It’s the weaponized anger and cruelty that is very effectively directed against the “other.” American “Christianity” inflicts pain. It’s good at it. And it likes it that way.

It’s killing “the Church.” And maybe it needs to die.

[demos 3011]

[WhatTheBuck 28801]

 

[KYHorn 17194]

3 hours ago, sidis said:

perhaps you could do everyone the favor of providing links to this overwhelming evidence to consider.

 

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

From an anecdotal perspective I can't imagine that he's not correct and it isn't a net benefit both individually and to society to have church membership.  That said- I'd bet you could also find, by the same perspective that it would be a net benefit to be a member of the Kiwanas or a book club or any kind of group that promotes social interaction.  Agreed with you that I'd like to see the study. 

VanderWheele, who leads Harvard's Initiative on Health, Religion and Spirituality, is a good place to start. 

Here: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/rshm/files/pnas-2017-vanderweele-1702996114.pdf on pg 5, second column, first full paragraph, he provides a brief summary and sources. 

Here, he provides a more detailed list in the context of a course he has developed: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/rshm/files/health_and_religion_course_harvard_.pdf

Based on something I wrote last year that was tangentially related (and so not as extensive as VanderWheele's work), here are some additional sources. One or two studies doesn't establish anything significant, but based on my reading of the literature on these topics, which I wouldn't say has been exhaustive (not my area of specialty), but has been fairly in-depth, these are not surprising or controversial findings. There are obviously many more researchers who specialize in these areas, and are worth reading (Pargament comes to mind) but hopefully this gives those who are interested and of good faith a place to start. 

Spoiler

Marital satisfaction

David, P., & Stafford, L. (2015). A relational approach to religion and spirituality in marriage: The role of couples’ religious communication in marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, 36(2), 232-249.

Depression

Ronneberg, C. R., Miller, E. A., Dugan, E., & Porell, F. (2014). The protective effects of religiosity on depression: A 2-year prospective study. The Gerontologist, 56(3), 421-431.

Smith, T. B., McCullough, M. E., & Poll, J. (2003). Religiousness and depression: evidence for a main effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychological bulletin, 129(4), 614

 

Psychological Well-Being

Fatima, S., Sharif, S., & Khalid, I. (2018). How does religiosity enhance psychological well-being? Roles of self-efficacy and perceived social support. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 10(2), 119-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000168

Petts, R. J. (2014). Family, religious attendance, and trajectories of psychological well-being among youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 759

 

Anxiety

Rosmarin, D. H., Bigda-Peyton, J. S., Öngur, D., Pargament, K. I., & Björgvinsson, T. (2013). Religious coping among psychotic patients: Relevance to suicidality and treatment outcomes. Psychiatry Research, 210(1), 182-187.

 

Sense of belonging

Green M., Elliott M. (2010). Religion, health, and psychological well-being. Journal of Religion and Health, 49, 149-163.

 

Recovery from alcoholism

Drerup, M. L., Johnson, T. J., & Bindl, S. (2011). Mediators of the relationship between religiousness/spirituality and alcohol problems in an adult community sample. Addictive behaviors, 36(12), 1317-1320.

 

Coping with natural disasters

Stratta, P., Capanna, C., Riccardi, I., Perugi, G., Toni, C., Dell’Osso, L., & Rossi, A. (2013). Spirituality and Religiosity in the Aftermath of a Natural Catastrophe in Italy. Journal of religion and health, 52(3), 1029-1037

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by KYHorn

[workswithseed 2111]

2 hours ago, sidis said:

from an anecdotal perspective, this chick disagrees. 

i am not asking about anecdotes.  ky made some very definitive claims about scholarship and empirical evidence that reaches very definitive conclusions and i am curious as to what he is specifically relying on to reach that conclusion.  i am not saying he is wrong, i just want to know what standards were employed by the researchers to define fellowship in what he is relying upon.  it is very different to say that people that feel part of a community are happier than to say the existence of the church makes the world a better place.

This is a head scratcher. Why not just let her go after trying to make contact? This is just bullyish, and forceful. Just move on, and try to get into contact when events are going to happen, and not make it a big deal. If she wanted to come back, she'll do it on her own volition. 

[workswithseed 2111]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Axiom of choice is either so much smarter than I am that he's speaking a language I can't understand, or I'm just not smart enough to realize he's speaking nonsense and don't recognize it as such. I'm going with the first option.  Though both options leave me feeling dumb.  

AoC talks how 5 is a constant before and after we die 5 will still be there. We can't see the physical form of 5, but a representative of it. It's how we can't see God or in this case god since it's not an explanation of the Christian god. That's my interpretation of his argument, and sidis can confirm if I'm right or wrong.

Edited April 1, 2021 by workswithseed

[Nicole44 22078]

Funny church signs courtesy of buzzfeed:

 

[futureman 22550]

On 3/30/2021 at 5:34 PM, Captainant said:

Definitely doesn't help that evangelical churches were preaching MAGA from the pulpit and faced no consequences from the greater community.

consequences?  lulz. 

[NWBuck 8587]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Of all the fucking nerve. That letter is outrageous. 

I actually think it's hilarious*. 

"We noticed that you've stop coming around. If you don't fix this, we won't let you come around anymore."

(*as hilarious as spiritual abuse can be)

Edited April 1, 2021 by NWBuck

[Wulaw Horn 19152]

2 hours ago, NWBuck said:

I actually think it's hilarious*. 

"We noticed that you've stop coming around. If you don't fix this, we won't let you come around anymore."

(*as hilarious as spiritual abuse can be)

So what was interesting to me is she had on a ring and it was talking about sinful relationship. Was she committing out and out adultery?  Or was it just a situation where her marriage wasn’t blessed by the church? 
when I was dabbling in Catholicism the priest that did our premarital counseling met with the married couple before us and told them they were in a sinful relationship because they didn’t get church married but did a wedding on the beach type destination. 
I must confess if that was me I’d have probably been a little ticked. Wonder what the backstory was/is on that letter. 
regardless of said backstory though on the letter your reframing it at its simplest is hysterically accurate and absurdly on point. 

[Captainant 27791]

5 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

So what was interesting to me is she had on a ring and it was talking about sinful relationship. Was she committing out and out adultery?  Or was it just a situation where her marriage wasn’t blessed by the church? 
when I was dabbling in Catholicism the priest that did our premarital counseling met with the married couple before us and told them they were in a sinful relationship because they didn’t get church married but did a wedding on the beach type destination. 

If the church doesn't get their money in booking and rental fees, then you're sinful. Doubly so if you don't give them their 10% tax-imean-tithe. The letter above wasn't a "please come back", it was a collections notice. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

He’s your God, they’re your rules, you burn in hell.

[workswithseed 2111]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

If the church doesn't get their money in booking and rental fees, then you're sinful. Doubly so if you don't give them their 10% tax-imean-tithe. The letter above wasn't a "please come back", it was a collections notice. 

Church of Christ doesn't do a 10% tithe.

[F250 28823]

12 hours ago, workswithseed said:

AoC talks how 5 is a constant before and after we die 5 will still be there. We can't see the physical form of 5, but a representative of it. It's how we can't see God or in this case god since it's not an explanation of the Christian god. That's my interpretation of his argument, and sidis can confirm if I'm right or wrong.

Sounds like a riff on Platonic forms but might be divine conceptualism. I would guess AoC subscribes to some form of conceptualism.