@Lamb Chopped That’s definitely true. Do you have any views on why ?
Only tentative ones within my own cultures--I think it takes a cultural insider at the very least to put a finger on causes within that particular group.
With you on omnipotence not including logical impossibilities or actions contrary to God's nature. One might consider the latter a subset of the former, inasmuch as God's nature is expressed through God's actions.
Dividing All That Is (I was going to say the Cosmos but I don't want to use a term that might be considered to refer only to the material universe) into where God's will is unopposed and where it isn't strikes me as another way of stating the same problem - God allows evil because God could declare nowhere to be the latter.
My understanding of the kingdom of God is that it's not something that's defined in terms of physical space-time - it isn't that sort of kingdom. So, to my mind, it is the concept of dividing all-that-is that is inconceivable - it doesn't make sense.
My understanding of the kingdom of God is that it's not something that's defined in terms of physical space-time - it isn't that sort of kingdom. So, to my mind, it is the concept of dividing all-that-is that is inconceivable - it doesn't make sense.
Yes. IIRC Greek just has one word which can equally be translated ‘kingdom’, ‘kingship’, and ‘rule’ or ‘reign’. I suspect, but haven’t verified, that when the Bible was first translated into English the word ‘kingdom’ had some of that wider range of meaning. Nowadays, of course, it simply means an area of land ruled by a monarch.
With you on omnipotence not including logical impossibilities or actions contrary to God's nature. One might consider the latter a subset of the former, inasmuch as God's nature is expressed through God's actions.
Dividing All That Is (I was going to say the Cosmos but I don't want to use a term that might be considered to refer only to the material universe) into where God's will is unopposed and where it isn't strikes me as another way of stating the same problem - God allows evil because God could declare nowhere to be the latter.
My understanding of the kingdom of God is that it's not something that's defined in terms of physical space-time - it isn't that sort of kingdom. So, to my mind, it is the concept of dividing all-that-is that is inconceivable - it doesn't make sense.
I said nothing about dividing the physical space time universe.
You seem to read in a lot which isn't there.
But this is getting away from the point. I don’t want you to ask me lots of questions about how I see this and that - I want *you* to explain *your* "non-scientific" way of seeing the problem of evil which avoids the question @Doublethink and I have identified.
Otherwise it once again looks like you trying to pick holes in my understanding without ever explaining yours.
With you on omnipotence not including logical impossibilities or actions contrary to God's nature. One might consider the latter a subset of the former, inasmuch as God's nature is expressed through God's actions.
Dividing All That Is (I was going to say the Cosmos but I don't want to use a term that might be considered to refer only to the material universe) into where God's will is unopposed and where it isn't strikes me as another way of stating the same problem - God allows evil because God could declare nowhere to be the latter.
My understanding of the kingdom of God is that it's not something that's defined in terms of physical space-time - it isn't that sort of kingdom. So, to my mind, it is the concept of dividing all-that-is that is inconceivable - it doesn't make sense.
I said nothing about dividing the physical space time universe.
Neither did I. If you look at the quotes above, you'll see the phrase you used was "Dividing All That Is" whereas the phrase I used was "dividing all-that-is".
With you on omnipotence not including logical impossibilities or actions contrary to God's nature. One might consider the latter a subset of the former, inasmuch as God's nature is expressed through God's actions.
Dividing All That Is (I was going to say the Cosmos but I don't want to use a term that might be considered to refer only to the material universe) into where God's will is unopposed and where it isn't strikes me as another way of stating the same problem - God allows evil because God could declare nowhere to be the latter.
My understanding of the kingdom of God is that it's not something that's defined in terms of physical space-time - it isn't that sort of kingdom. So, to my mind, it is the concept of dividing all-that-is that is inconceivable - it doesn't make sense.
I said nothing about dividing the physical space time universe.
Neither did I. If you look at the quotes above, you'll see the phrase you used was "Dividing All That Is" whereas the phrase I used was "dividing all-that-is".
I'm fed up with playing games. This is getting ridiculous.
Fuck it; I'm not carrying on playing silly buggers arguing the toss with you about the significance you've enigmatically and idiosyncratically assigned to a couple of hyphens, and which of course you've not explained. I could only continue this conversation in Hell and it's not worth my energy.
With you on omnipotence not including logical impossibilities or actions contrary to God's nature. One might consider the latter a subset of the former, inasmuch as God's nature is expressed through God's actions.
Dividing All That Is (I was going to say the Cosmos but I don't want to use a term that might be considered to refer only to the material universe) into where God's will is unopposed and where it isn't strikes me as another way of stating the same problem - God allows evil because God could declare nowhere to be the latter.
My understanding of the kingdom of God is that it's not something that's defined in terms of physical space-time - it isn't that sort of kingdom. So, to my mind, it is the concept of dividing all-that-is that is inconceivable - it doesn't make sense.
I said nothing about dividing the physical space time universe.
Neither did I. If you look at the quotes above, you'll see the phrase you used was "Dividing All That Is" whereas the phrase I used was "dividing all-that-is".
I'm fed up with playing games. This is getting ridiculous.
Fuck it; I'm not carrying on playing silly buggers arguing the toss with you about the significance you've enigmatically and idiosyncratically assigned to a couple of hyphens, and which of course you've not explained.
The point I was making was that there is no difference in the two phrases other than the capital letters and the hyphens. I chose the same phrase as you used in order to refer to the same thing as you referred to. I used hyphens instead of capital letters because the immediately following two words in my post were "that is".
Meanwhile, @Lamb Chopped - I don't know why you modestly apologise for your input to this thread.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has found your comments/questions thought-provoking and valuable.
Because it's fucking annoying for someone from outside to pop in on a gloomfest in one culture and say, "Hello! The sun is shining out here!" Nobody wants to hear that, even if it's true. Maybe especially if it's true.
It could be, but I'm not sure any of us took it that way.
Besides, if the sun's too hot people get dehydrated or sunburnt.
Growth brings different problems to decline. We'd all rather have it of course but I don't think any of us would be thinking, 'Dang that Lamb Chopped, see how she gloats ...'
I also get the impression that the sunny conditions you are anxious not to share with us lest it darken our own gloom - a commendable concern - don't apply uniformly across North America nor the USA in particular. I keep hearing from US Shipmates and American Christians I know in real life that their churches are struggling to attract or retain young people.
But if the sun has got his hat on, hip hip hooray - as the old song goes - then I for one am pleased for you.
For me it's a problem of fundamental dishonesty about the nature of faith. Real faith is an exploration of mystery, not an accession to terms and conditions.
I'm not sure it's either of those things, but don't currently have a good definition. A poor definition, but one that sticks in my mind, is that real faith exists in the complete absence of belief.
... To me, the question is whether young people have any interest in anything which is not materially evident.
My instinctive response was that this isn't the case - after reflection, I'd say the young people I know have a far better-developed sense of identity, relationship and community than I remember being the case with my peers, when I was their age.
I recently spoke with a young curate who is also a university chaplain. The two churches where he serves are full of young people! One attracts students, the other has young families, though the divide is not as strict as that. He expressed regret that there are not enough people over 50 - “not enough Grown Ups” which I thought was an interesting take.
I suspect he has no idea what it’s like to be in a church where there is hardly anyone under 50, or even, under 75.
Leaving aside all other considerations, and there are many, I think the main explanation is that Like attracts Like.
Although I am definitely post Xtian I’m acquainted with a lot of young (<30) people who are churchily involved. Unfortunately “ terms & conditions” appears to be a drawcard for most of this lot whether they be Traddie Triddies, charo-evo or con-evo.
I find this frightening as it appears that these earnest young Xtians have not progressed much beyond the black and white legalism of my periconciliar youth when the Catechism resembled the English penal code of the 18 century when there were 200 capital offences.
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to approach the problem of evil, and God's omnipotence, from an orthodox Christian point of view. To that end, I'm currently asking myself the following questions:
Is it in God's nature to deny his omnipotence?
Why does God's omnipotence matter so much to us?
Is it in God's nature to identify with the powerful, or the powerless?
People want community, communities want certainty. The nature of that certainty is often less of a priority.
This may hit at why I've always struggled with church communities, especially those of an evangelical bent. The nature and source of any certainty is, as I explained in my Autism and Religion thread in Epiphanies, of profound and overriding importance to me.
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to approach the problem of evil, and God's omnipotence, from an orthodox Christian point of view. To that end, I'm currently asking myself the following questions:
Is it in God's nature to deny his omnipotence?
Why does God's omnipotence matter so much to us?
Is it in God's nature to identify with the powerful, or the powerless?
The issue I raised, was that God in being the creator of everything, created evil and suffering. Which is a slightly different aspect to God’s nature than omnipotence. And that this inconsistent with the conceptualisation of God as love.
Though this a bit of a tangent - maybe we should have an apologetics thread.
The only certain 'certainty' in this life here on earth is death. Any certainty which we have about life after physical death of the body comes under the heading of belief, faith, trust.
As we advance in age the 'certainties ' which we may have had in youth become less important than our faith and trust that one day all will be well.
Of pease's recent questions only the third one would interest me. All creatures be they powerful or powerless are God's creations (at least according to orthodox Christian ideas).
He must therefore identify in some way with both ,but we are reminded, in the song which Mary made as her own that 'He has scattered the proud with all their plans and has lifted up the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away with empty hands.'
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to approach the problem of evil, and God's omnipotence, from an orthodox Christian point of view. To that end, I'm currently asking myself the following questions:
Is it in God's nature to deny his omnipotence?
Why does God's omnipotence matter so much to us?
Is it in God's nature to identify with the powerful, or the powerless?
I suggest you consider process theology. One of its themes is God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control (See: Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State University of New York, 1984).
That's a solution, but it depends if you're willing to move well outside classic Christian theology.
You also have to postulate a God who can cause galaxies to exist but not do anything for someone clinging onto a branch as a Tsunami rises higher up the tree.
This thread was originally about why we don’t see many young people in church. It is now four pages long. A lot of the posts here might just explain why young people are put off.
People want community, communities want certainty. The nature of that certainty is often less of a priority.
This may hit at why I've always struggled with church communities, especially those of an evangelical bent. The nature and source of any certainty is, as I explained in my Autism and Religion thread in Epiphanies, of profound and overriding importance to me.
Yes - if making sense of the certainties isn't high up the list of anyone else's priorities, you could be in for a rough ride.
PS I agree about process theology - it's not really in the orthodox mainstream. (But thanks for the thought, @Gramps49.)
This thread was originally about why we don’t see many young people in church. It is now four pages long. A lot of the posts here might just explain why young people are put off.
Indeed.
But do you mean put off by the length or by the content?
Or should there be short posts that simply go, 'And God was like "Whoah!" and I was like "Eh?" and Moses was like "No way!" ...'
This thread was originally about why we don’t see many young people in church. It is now four pages long. A lot of the posts here might just explain why young people are put off.
Indeed.
But do you mean put off by the length or by the content?
Or should there be short posts that simply go, 'And God was like "Whoah!" and I was like "Eh?" and Moses was like "No way!" ...'
Two questions I'm left with regarding young people not going to church:
* Does it matter? (Leaving aside the question of property maintenance.)
* What does it signify?
Maybe it just illustrates what happens when belief becomes detached from identity and community. Or when belief appears less existential and more of a lifestyle choice (restricting the question to those parts of the world where that is the case, which seems to be what most of the posts on this thread represent).
The follow-up is asking ourselves whether we can articulate why our belief matters (rather than the question of why we believe). If we are unable to answer that question in ways that communicate anything significant to newer generations, they'd be quite justified in not seeing the relevance.
Is that a massive great elephant I spy in the room with "Hell" written on it?
Many evangelicals believe that belief is necessary for the sort of faith they believe is salvific. Believing the right things ultimately, in their worldview, saves people from an eternity in hell.
That makes their belief matter. It saves them and if they can pass it on to others it saves those others.
The problem those of us who've said "hang on a moment - that makes no sense at all, especially when you're claiming it's the project of a loving and merciful God" and moved away from that position have is that we don't have a pressing reason for belief to replace it - beyond "because (we think) it's true".
Is that what you mean by "less existential"?
I don't think belief is seen as a "lifestyle choice" - the word "choice" is, at least as far as my mental furniture is concerned, entirely incompatible with the word "believe" - I cannot choose to believe anything - not really. I mean I can say to someone "I'm choosing to believe that you didn't mean to do that" but what we really mean is "I'm suspicious, but I don't know so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and not acting as if I was sure you'd done that deliberately". I can't choose to believe that unicorns are real or not, that there are fairies at the end of the garden or not, or whether God is real or not, by a decision - only by conclusion based on evidence and experience.
But I digress.
The challenge for us non-damnationalists is, having lost the negative reason why belief matters - "because otherwise you'll burn in Hell when you die", to find positive reasons - and universal reasons at that, if we believe that the beliefs in question are, well, universally true.
Belief may not be a matter of choice, but turning up at church certainly is.
Well this is true, but trivially so I think, inasmuch as people turn up at a church as part of the expression of their belief.
You've got four possible top-level categories haven't you?
1. Believe, doesn't go to church
2. Believes, goes to church
3. Doesn't believe, doesn't go to church
4. Doesn't believe, goes to church
And I think this is illuminating. We often talk as if we've got a lot of people in category 1., and if we make church entertaining/interesting/relevant/[insert your idea here] then they'll move to category 2.
Reality is, most people are 3. And more and moreso as time goes by. There's more than a few in 4, as well, either trying to rekindle a dying or dead faith, or going for whatever other reasons but unconcerned about actual belief. That that last subgroup exists is evidence for the social community aspect of church for some people, I suppose. As church becomes less of a Thing People Do, then we can expect that group to shrink.
But why should young people express their belief in that particular way, especially if all the others present are a bunch of old buffers?
Well, see my later edit. I hit Post too early first time.
Firstly I'm not sure there are many young people who are not expressing their belief by going to church. The vast, vast majority of non church-goers, of any age, don't go because they don't believe the things that churches teach - you know, in things like angels and in Jesus and the saints and in all the prophets, as Joan Osborne put it.
Which brings us back to the simple reality that if you want fuller churches, you need more people who believe (or at least who want to believe) in church stuff.
I think that many young people nowadays have no idea as to what the Church teaches and no interest in finding out what the Church teaches
As Karl has just said 'if you want fuller churches, you need to have more people who believe. How does one get more people to believe ?
It can only by getting those who claim to be Christians to be evangelists and and to preach the Gospel 'using words where necessary'.
Certainly in the Western world the Church has ,in the main, lost its place in public life and its influence for good or for ill on wider society.
But this does not mean that the Church has nothing to offer.
1. Believe, doesn't go to church
2. Believes, goes to church
3. Doesn't believe, doesn't go to church
4. Doesn't believe, goes to church
I don't think believe vs don't believe is a binary distinction. There are a lot of people in the grey areas - the "I might believe / I sort of vaguely believe, and remain willing to if it's not too onerous" type people. These people's degree of belief can easily be altered by practice - if they habitually go to church, they will likely see their belief grow a little, whereas if they decide they have better things to do and church isn't relevant for them, then their belief tends to reduce.
It's true of course, but I'm simplifying for the purpose of making the point that the main reason for people not going to church is the same reason I don't go to the Mosque on Fridays.
1. Believe, doesn't go to church
2. Believes, goes to church
3. Doesn't believe, doesn't go to church
4. Doesn't believe, goes to church
I don't think believe vs don't believe is a binary distinction. There are a lot of people in the grey areas - the "I might believe / I sort of vaguely believe, and remain willing to if it's not too onerous" type people. These people's degree of belief can easily be altered by practice - if they habitually go to church, they will likely see their belief grow a little, whereas if they decide they have better things to do and church isn't relevant for them, then their belief tends to reduce.
"Willing to" sounds an odd phrase to use of belief, but that question's well worn.
Is it easily altered though? Despite everything I've spent most of my adult life regularly attending church and I don't feel it's altered my degree of belief (or scepticism if you prefer) one iota; indeed my scepticism grew at the very time I was the most committed attender.
But that's just me - n=1 and all that. I have been painfully aware from the age of about three that what applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else.
However I think that seeing some sort of value in religious belief does not come easily to most teenagers. On the other hand I find some (certainly not too many )who come to rethink the possible value of religious belief as they approach middle age. Sometimes this happens with people who may have been brought up as Catholics and then abandoned this until it comes the time when they have to pose the question as to whether they should expose their children to religious belief.
It's true of course, but I'm simplifying for the purpose of making the point that the main reason for people not going to church is the same reason I don't go to the Mosque on Fridays.
They didn't grow up and don't live in a community that expects it?
It's true of course, but I'm simplifying for the purpose of making the point that the main reason for people not going to church is the same reason I don't go to the Mosque on Fridays.
They didn't grow up and don't live in a community that expects it?
Now that's in interesting point. I think of the reason being that I don't believe what Muslims believe, but of course this is also true.
But that's just me - n=1 and all that. I have been painfully aware from the age of about three that what applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else.
I'd venture to suggest that you were considerably more rational than the average person. Most people, in my experience, tend to feel at things much more than they think about them.
There is, amongst a number of non-churchgoers of my acquaintance, a certain sort of residual belief, as evidenced by, for example, the willingness to sing Christmas carols, the giving up of something in Lent, the knowledge that Jesus died on Good Friday and Easter is about new life, and that those who have died are up there watching over us.
It may merely be part of their cultural background and may no longer be the case for their children or grand-children. The latter may, at best, turn up for Christingles, or Midnight Mass, or Remembrance Day, and possibly choose to have a wedding or funeral in church.
I don’t foresee any young people starting to attend church out of the blue. They have probably needed a compelling invitation to cross the threshold, and if they do, are unlikely to go again unless there are other young people there.
When I went to church out of the blue, age 25 and having being an atheist since childhood, it was because I had questions that I wanted answered about what was missing from my life. A friend invited me to a course at her church and it was, indeed, a church filled with young people.
If you are on Facebook, you’ll see an awful lot of apparently non-church folk post about their dead relatives being in heaven, looking down on them from heaven etc etc. Exactly what kind of metaphysical belief that represents is unclear. You’ll also see a lot of memes about how love and relationships are more important than material things.
If you are on Facebook, you’ll see an awful lot of apparently non-church folk post about their dead relatives being in heaven, looking down on them from heaven etc etc. Exactly what kind of metaphysical belief that represents is unclear. You’ll also see a lot of memes about how love and relationships are more important than material things.
People also talk about dead pets and the "Rainbow Bridge". Do they really believe in that?
Personally I can't get my head around getting comfort from an image I know isn't true but I recall once really getting my arse burnt for expressing that view. And as I've already said once today, my reactions are no guide to anyone else's.
So as you say, whether that stuff actually represents a belief that it's true is anyone's guess.
I'm even more unsure that it necessarily relates all that much to specifically Christian beliefs that most churches would subscribe to.
If you are on Facebook, you’ll see an awful lot of apparently non-church folk post about their dead relatives being in heaven, looking down on them from heaven etc etc. Exactly what kind of metaphysical belief that represents is unclear. You’ll also see a lot of memes about how love and relationships are more important than material things.
People also talk about dead pets and the "Rainbow Bridge". Do they really believe in that?
I’d guess most people who talk about “Rainbow Bridge” use it as a euphemism. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if many of them do believe in some sort of afterlife for pets. C.S. Lewis posited the possibility of that, if I recall correctly.
When I went to church out of the blue, age 25 and having being an atheist since childhood, it was because I had questions that I wanted answered about what was missing from my life. A friend invited me to a course at her church and it was, indeed, a church filled with young people.
Sure, and that applied to me too when I began to explore Christianity as a 19 year old student, although I wasn't an atheist. I had a kind of residual awareness from Sunday school and school assemblies and various Christian friends.
There was the Christian Union of course and groups that were more liberal in their approach such as the Student Christian Movement and the Ang-Methsoc.
I occupied a kind of half-way house position for a while between the full-on evangelicals and the more liberal types but then plunged into charismatic evangelicalism which appeared to be on a roll at that time - the early '80s.
I'd encountered Pentecostalism in my native South Wales and I certainly wouldn't have been drawn that way had I stayed there. The newer charismatic fellowships seemed full of bright young things and looking back I don't think I'd have taken charismatic Christianity at all seriously if there hadn't been lots of undergrads involved.
Mind you, at that time there were plenty of bright young things knocking around in the more Reformed and Calvinistic churches too.
I could have just as easily ended up there. Birds of a feather.
I was very much involved and engaged with the charismatic evangelical scene for years and years despite nursing grave reservations about much that went on. It was the community that kept me there.
Comments
Thanks, I shall keep that.
Only tentative ones within my own cultures--I think it takes a cultural insider at the very least to put a finger on causes within that particular group.
Yes. IIRC Greek just has one word which can equally be translated ‘kingdom’, ‘kingship’, and ‘rule’ or ‘reign’. I suspect, but haven’t verified, that when the Bible was first translated into English the word ‘kingdom’ had some of that wider range of meaning. Nowadays, of course, it simply means an area of land ruled by a monarch.
I said nothing about dividing the physical space time universe.
You seem to read in a lot which isn't there.
But this is getting away from the point. I don’t want you to ask me lots of questions about how I see this and that - I want *you* to explain *your* "non-scientific" way of seeing the problem of evil which avoids the question @Doublethink and I have identified.
Otherwise it once again looks like you trying to pick holes in my understanding without ever explaining yours.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has found your comments/questions thought-provoking and valuable.
I'm fed up with playing games. This is getting ridiculous.
Fuck it; I'm not carrying on playing silly buggers arguing the toss with you about the significance you've enigmatically and idiosyncratically assigned to a couple of hyphens, and which of course you've not explained. I could only continue this conversation in Hell and it's not worth my energy.
Because it's fucking annoying for someone from outside to pop in on a gloomfest in one culture and say, "Hello! The sun is shining out here!" Nobody wants to hear that, even if it's true. Maybe especially if it's true.
Besides, if the sun's too hot people get dehydrated or sunburnt.
Growth brings different problems to decline. We'd all rather have it of course but I don't think any of us would be thinking, 'Dang that Lamb Chopped, see how she gloats ...'
I also get the impression that the sunny conditions you are anxious not to share with us lest it darken our own gloom - a commendable concern - don't apply uniformly across North America nor the USA in particular. I keep hearing from US Shipmates and American Christians I know in real life that their churches are struggling to attract or retain young people.
But if the sun has got his hat on, hip hip hooray - as the old song goes - then I for one am pleased for you.
My instinctive response was that this isn't the case - after reflection, I'd say the young people I know have a far better-developed sense of identity, relationship and community than I remember being the case with my peers, when I was their age.
I suspect he has no idea what it’s like to be in a church where there is hardly anyone under 50, or even, under 75.
Leaving aside all other considerations, and there are many, I think the main explanation is that Like attracts Like.
Although I am definitely post Xtian I’m acquainted with a lot of young (<30) people who are churchily involved. Unfortunately “ terms & conditions” appears to be a drawcard for most of this lot whether they be Traddie Triddies, charo-evo or con-evo.
I find this frightening as it appears that these earnest young Xtians have not progressed much beyond the black and white legalism of my periconciliar youth when the Catechism resembled the English penal code of the 18 century when there were 200 capital offences.
Interesting how most Of us grow out of that
Is it in God's nature to deny his omnipotence?
Why does God's omnipotence matter so much to us?
Is it in God's nature to identify with the powerful, or the powerless?
This may hit at why I've always struggled with church communities, especially those of an evangelical bent. The nature and source of any certainty is, as I explained in my Autism and Religion thread in Epiphanies, of profound and overriding importance to me.
The issue I raised, was that God in being the creator of everything, created evil and suffering. Which is a slightly different aspect to God’s nature than omnipotence. And that this inconsistent with the conceptualisation of God as love.
Though this a bit of a tangent - maybe we should have an apologetics thread.
As we advance in age the 'certainties ' which we may have had in youth become less important than our faith and trust that one day all will be well.
Of pease's recent questions only the third one would interest me. All creatures be they powerful or powerless are God's creations (at least according to orthodox Christian ideas).
He must therefore identify in some way with both ,but we are reminded, in the song which Mary made as her own that 'He has scattered the proud with all their plans and has lifted up the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away with empty hands.'
I suggest you consider process theology. One of its themes is God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control (See: Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State University of New York, 1984).
You also have to postulate a God who can cause galaxies to exist but not do anything for someone clinging onto a branch as a Tsunami rises higher up the tree.
PS I agree about process theology - it's not really in the orthodox mainstream. (But thanks for the thought, @Gramps49.)
Indeed.
But do you mean put off by the length or by the content?
Or should there be short posts that simply go, 'And God was like "Whoah!" and I was like "Eh?" and Moses was like "No way!" ...'
I'll get me coat ...
Absolutely love that!
* Does it matter? (Leaving aside the question of property maintenance.)
* What does it signify?
Maybe it just illustrates what happens when belief becomes detached from identity and community. Or when belief appears less existential and more of a lifestyle choice (restricting the question to those parts of the world where that is the case, which seems to be what most of the posts on this thread represent).
The follow-up is asking ourselves whether we can articulate why our belief matters (rather than the question of why we believe). If we are unable to answer that question in ways that communicate anything significant to newer generations, they'd be quite justified in not seeing the relevance.
Many evangelicals believe that belief is necessary for the sort of faith they believe is salvific. Believing the right things ultimately, in their worldview, saves people from an eternity in hell.
That makes their belief matter. It saves them and if they can pass it on to others it saves those others.
The problem those of us who've said "hang on a moment - that makes no sense at all, especially when you're claiming it's the project of a loving and merciful God" and moved away from that position have is that we don't have a pressing reason for belief to replace it - beyond "because (we think) it's true".
Is that what you mean by "less existential"?
I don't think belief is seen as a "lifestyle choice" - the word "choice" is, at least as far as my mental furniture is concerned, entirely incompatible with the word "believe" - I cannot choose to believe anything - not really. I mean I can say to someone "I'm choosing to believe that you didn't mean to do that" but what we really mean is "I'm suspicious, but I don't know so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and not acting as if I was sure you'd done that deliberately". I can't choose to believe that unicorns are real or not, that there are fairies at the end of the garden or not, or whether God is real or not, by a decision - only by conclusion based on evidence and experience.
But I digress.
The challenge for us non-damnationalists is, having lost the negative reason why belief matters - "because otherwise you'll burn in Hell when you die", to find positive reasons - and universal reasons at that, if we believe that the beliefs in question are, well, universally true.
Well this is true, but trivially so I think, inasmuch as people turn up at a church as part of the expression of their belief.
You've got four possible top-level categories haven't you?
1. Believe, doesn't go to church
2. Believes, goes to church
3. Doesn't believe, doesn't go to church
4. Doesn't believe, goes to church
And I think this is illuminating. We often talk as if we've got a lot of people in category 1., and if we make church entertaining/interesting/relevant/[insert your idea here] then they'll move to category 2.
Reality is, most people are 3. And more and moreso as time goes by. There's more than a few in 4, as well, either trying to rekindle a dying or dead faith, or going for whatever other reasons but unconcerned about actual belief. That that last subgroup exists is evidence for the social community aspect of church for some people, I suppose. As church becomes less of a Thing People Do, then we can expect that group to shrink.
After all, most people are fairly trivial, when pressed on their beliefs.
Church stopped beng a Thing People Do (in my corner of the UK) many years ago
Well, see my later edit. I hit Post too early first time.
Firstly I'm not sure there are many young people who are not expressing their belief by going to church. The vast, vast majority of non church-goers, of any age, don't go because they don't believe the things that churches teach - you know, in things like angels and in Jesus and the saints and in all the prophets, as Joan Osborne put it.
Which brings us back to the simple reality that if you want fuller churches, you need more people who believe (or at least who want to believe) in church stuff.
As Karl has just said 'if you want fuller churches, you need to have more people who believe. How does one get more people to believe ?
It can only by getting those who claim to be Christians to be evangelists and and to preach the Gospel 'using words where necessary'.
Certainly in the Western world the Church has ,in the main, lost its place in public life and its influence for good or for ill on wider society.
But this does not mean that the Church has nothing to offer.
I don't think believe vs don't believe is a binary distinction. There are a lot of people in the grey areas - the "I might believe / I sort of vaguely believe, and remain willing to if it's not too onerous" type people. These people's degree of belief can easily be altered by practice - if they habitually go to church, they will likely see their belief grow a little, whereas if they decide they have better things to do and church isn't relevant for them, then their belief tends to reduce.
"Willing to" sounds an odd phrase to use of belief, but that question's well worn.
Is it easily altered though? Despite everything I've spent most of my adult life regularly attending church and I don't feel it's altered my degree of belief (or scepticism if you prefer) one iota; indeed my scepticism grew at the very time I was the most committed attender.
But that's just me - n=1 and all that. I have been painfully aware from the age of about three that what applies to me doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else.
They didn't grow up and don't live in a community that expects it?
Now that's in interesting point. I think of the reason being that I don't believe what Muslims believe, but of course this is also true.
I'd venture to suggest that you were considerably more rational than the average person. Most people, in my experience, tend to feel at things much more than they think about them.
It may merely be part of their cultural background and may no longer be the case for their children or grand-children. The latter may, at best, turn up for Christingles, or Midnight Mass, or Remembrance Day, and possibly choose to have a wedding or funeral in church.
I don’t foresee any young people starting to attend church out of the blue. They have probably needed a compelling invitation to cross the threshold, and if they do, are unlikely to go again unless there are other young people there.
People also talk about dead pets and the "Rainbow Bridge". Do they really believe in that?
Personally I can't get my head around getting comfort from an image I know isn't true but I recall once really getting my arse burnt for expressing that view. And as I've already said once today, my reactions are no guide to anyone else's.
So as you say, whether that stuff actually represents a belief that it's true is anyone's guess.
I'm even more unsure that it necessarily relates all that much to specifically Christian beliefs that most churches would subscribe to.
Sure, and that applied to me too when I began to explore Christianity as a 19 year old student, although I wasn't an atheist. I had a kind of residual awareness from Sunday school and school assemblies and various Christian friends.
There was the Christian Union of course and groups that were more liberal in their approach such as the Student Christian Movement and the Ang-Methsoc.
I occupied a kind of half-way house position for a while between the full-on evangelicals and the more liberal types but then plunged into charismatic evangelicalism which appeared to be on a roll at that time - the early '80s.
I'd encountered Pentecostalism in my native South Wales and I certainly wouldn't have been drawn that way had I stayed there. The newer charismatic fellowships seemed full of bright young things and looking back I don't think I'd have taken charismatic Christianity at all seriously if there hadn't been lots of undergrads involved.
Mind you, at that time there were plenty of bright young things knocking around in the more Reformed and Calvinistic churches too.
I could have just as easily ended up there. Birds of a feather.
I was very much involved and engaged with the charismatic evangelical scene for years and years despite nursing grave reservations about much that went on. It was the community that kept me there.