The Death/Loss Of Religion In America (2 Viewers)

[Ilov80s]

In my opinion, and it's just that, the "once saved always saved" debate is a distraction. For me at least, the answer is continue to follow Jesus. I think it's just better that way compared to thinking it's like buying a ticket and done. Lots of people have written and thought a lot about it. But for me, I see it often as a distraction.

Same. I understand why this is an interesting issue philosophically, but it also doesn't really matter. This isn't why I go to church.

To make a strained analogy, if I don't mow my lawn during the summer, my HOA will get on my case and the city will fine me. I mow my lawn each week, but I'm not even thinking about any of that -- I mow my lawn because it's good to keep my lawn maintained, not because anybody is looking over my shoulder (even though they are).

This is also why I follow a large portion of the teachings of Jesus despite not believing in the religion itself.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Free will is one of those topics where extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. If there's one thing that each of experiences every day, it's the experience of thinking about stuff and making decisions. The fact that you considered the topic and decided that "free will" might be illusory is itself a data point in favor of free will. I know that I personally decide things all the time. When you have a lifetime of first-hand experience with reality, it should take gigantic amounts of extremely high-quality evidence to even budge that prior. Your reluctance to adjust your prior should only go up once you get into it and realize how much of this debate is just a semantic argument about what the term "free will" means.

You’ve never wanted to change something- maybe even something really important and failed repeatedly? Think of all the people wanting to lose weight, learn a new instrument, stop drinking, save money, etc. Also, the idea of where do our thoughts come from? Some of the most meaningful things I’ve ever done have been almost without any thought at all, they just happened or I just knew it what’s I would do. I often find the more I have to think about something, the less likely it is to happen. Why did I become a teacher? No idea just knew it was what I wanted to do and I love it. I was confident who I was going to marry pretty much 8 years before we ever even went on a date. When I cleaned up my health, it just happened. I went on a treadmill one morning, threw away all my weed, started eating less and just kept doing it. There was no plan or forethought.

I’m not a strong proponent of free will, but I’m not sure that these negate the concept of free will. The fact that you can have the idea to try to change and can sometimes change are evidence of free will. The fact that you can’t accomplish every single goal doesn’t mean that there is NO free will. I would say that an organism that can’t even entertain the notion of doing something different is demonstrating a lack of free will much more clearly. While I do agree that that people often have more of an illusion of free will than they realize and that basically everything that we do is influenced by outside factors in the past and present and specific incentives that may be known or unknown, within that framework, we do make choices. We also make choices about our futures and about a future self that is far less connected to us than many other people or activities in the present or immediate future. The breadth of choices we make about different timelines and about a (perceived) continuous self over decades suggests that there is some level of free will that exists.

Perhaps some of that was explained poorly but the things I gave examples did not feel like decisions or ideas I had. They felt like things I just did or things I knew were going to happen regardless. Yes, I make decisions like will I watch a movie or a football game tonight. But in general, I feel more like an antenna receiving ideas than the person generating them. I feel more like I am observing myself follow a path. There is pretty much no meaningful situation that I ever consider. I just do what I do and it works out well.

I am sympathetic to this view, although it seems like you mainly just want to absolve yourself of responsibility when you lose in the FF championship this week…

 

[culdeus]

I don’t think faith is a system which can be gamed - surely an omniscient deity would know better?

Then again, why would an omnipotent being care how inconsequential mortals lived their brief time on earth?

I mean on one hand there are religions that want you to pop in 5x a day and fast sometimes, and others that are pretty yolo. There is more consistency in WR scoring in fantasy than expectations of religious adherence

 

[Terminalxylem]

I don’t think faith is a system which can be gamed - surely an omniscient deity would know better?

Then again, why would an omnipotent being care how inconsequential mortals lived their brief time on earth?

If you are a mortal created by the omniscient deity, in the omniscient deity's image, why would you expect to be inconsequential to said omniscient deity?

Because the diety can easily create an infinite number of replacements, and should already know how you'll behave anyway. Moreover, human lifespan on Earth is vanishingly brief to an immortal.

Perhaps most importantly, pride and vanity and character flaws, so I wouldn't expect a perfect being to need a bunch of mini-me's.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thought this was good. From those noted bible thumpers at the New York Times...

I love that picture of not just healing the leper, but touching him. Jesus made himself "unclean" according to the laws. But did the will of God.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/24/...e_code=1.JE0.1UD_.2916dhgXoroQ&smid=url-share

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

I think that's a good point. Lots of people feel like they're not "qualified" and need to "leave it to the experts". I think most people, if they go about it with some humility, are plenty qualified. At least from the angle of just telling others their experience.

 

[Zow]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why the Christian religion is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8.

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer and the absence of a woman's consent, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why religious is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8. The

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

Thanks for sharing. I do think it's probably a good reminder for Christians to remember folks might have a similar response to some things. That's a good word for all of us to be cognizant others have different experiences or see things differently.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

Very good post. Out of curiosity, when these people "evangelize" to you, is that taking place at church (or someplace adjacent to that), or is it coming from people who don't already know that you're a church-goer? The reason why I ask is because it makes sense that people are more confident talking about their faith if they know they're talking to another believer, or somebody who is at least happy being around believers. I was always raised with the understanding that it's rude to talk about politics or religion in the workplace or casual social situations, but I wonder based on some of the comments in this thread if that's not really the case elsewhere in the country.

 

[Zow]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

Very good post. Out of curiosity, when these people "evangelize" to you, is that taking place at church (or someplace adjacent to that), or is it coming from people who don't already know that you're a church-goer? The reason why I ask is because it makes sense that people are more confident talking about their faith if they know they're talking to another believer, or somebody who is at least happy being around believers. I was always raised with the understanding that it's rude to talk about politics or religion in the workplace or casual social situations, but I wonder based on some of the comments in this thread if that's not really the case elsewhere in the country.

I know your post wasn't addressing me directly so I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but I'm willing to bet that the posts in this thread are the rare exception to the general rule you identify in the bold.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why the Christian religion is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8.

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer and the absence of a woman's consent, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

From the book of Luke chapter 1. (New Living Translation)

The Birth of Jesus Foretold​

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings,[a] favored woman! The Lord is with you![b]”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. 36 What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. 37 For the word of God will never fail.[d]”

38 Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

Your post is a good reminder though. What Christians may see as sacred or holy with how a virgin could conceive and carry a baby that was the Son of God, others might see as ludicrous or funny or rape.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I was always raised with the understanding that it's rude to talk about politics or religion in the workplace or casual social situations, but I wonder based on some of the comments in this thread if that's not really the case elsewhere in the country.

That's a good question. I think for many situations, that's still the case. This thread is much different as it's a message board with clearly labeled thread titles and people can wander in knowing mostly what they're getting into.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

Very good post. Out of curiosity, when these people "evangelize" to you, is that taking place at church (or someplace adjacent to that), or is it coming from people who don't already know that you're a church-goer? The reason why I ask is because it makes sense that people are more confident talking about their faith if they know they're talking to another believer, or somebody who is at least happy being around believers. I was always raised with the understanding that it's rude to talk about politics or religion in the workplace or casual social situations, but I wonder based on some of the comments in this thread if that's not really the case elsewhere in the country.

While I had casual conversations with co-workers about religion when I was working in an office environment, I wouldn't characterize any of them as coming close to evangelism. I think most would view that as relatively taboo, though churches certainly don't want people to feel that way. Lots of encouragement to do so in my experience.

Conversations about faith in church are easy. I don't even know if I'd consider that evangelism most of the time. People just like to share their stories with each other, especially in a setting they consider to be safe and supportive. Which, honestly, is probably the most uncomfortable situation for me. I find it easier to have a conversation with someone who has beliefs they don't know if I share than with someone who has a preconceived notion that I share their belief system (when maybe I really don't).

Schools were big ones. I've had more than one conversation at more than one school event that ventured into, "So, do you have a church?" That's an easy intro, btw. You're going to find out quickly whether the person is interested, and it's pretty easy to pivot lots of directions with it based on reaction. We're also in a conservative pocket of our city, so I think lots of people just assume it's a safe topic.

 

[Zow]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why the Christian religion is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8.

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer and the absence of a woman's consent, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

From the book of Luke chapter 1. (New Living Translation)

The Birth of Jesus Foretold​

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings,[a] favored woman! The Lord is with you![b]”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. 36 What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. 37 For the word of God will never fail.[d]”

38 Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

Your post is a good reminder though. What Christians may see as sacred or holy with how a virgin could conceive and carry a baby that was the Son of God, others might see as ludicrous or funny or rape.

I was just genuinely taken aback by the language used in a kid's play where it was just so basic and blunt (and, under secular laws, very clearly rape by legal definition).

I paid attention in religion class the many years I attended so I understand the theological nuance to the exchange (I just hadn't thought about it for like ten years since I stopped practicing any religious faith). But, even the bold implies no choice on Mary's part so, again, to just some random outside God in this instance sounds objectively terrifying that he would appear to a young virgin and impregnate her as a pre-planned event and even though she becomes okay with it even by literal scripture it's clear that God was going to do it regardless.

 

[culdeus]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

Very good post. Out of curiosity, when these people "evangelize" to you, is that taking place at church (or someplace adjacent to that), or is it coming from people who don't already know that you're a church-goer? The reason why I ask is because it makes sense that people are more confident talking about their faith if they know they're talking to another believer, or somebody who is at least happy being around believers. I was always raised with the understanding that it's rude to talk about politics or religion in the workplace or casual social situations, but I wonder based on some of the comments in this thread if that's not really the case elsewhere in the country.

While I had casual conversations with co-workers about religion when I was working in an office environment, I wouldn't characterize any of them as coming close to evangelism. I think most would view that as relatively taboo, though churches certainly don't want people to feel that way. Lots of encouragement to do so in my experience.

Conversations about faith in church are easy. I don't even know if I'd consider that evangelism most of the time. People just like to share their stories with each other, especially in a setting they consider to be safe and supportive. Which, honestly, is probably the most uncomfortable situation for me. I find it easier to have a conversation with someone who has beliefs they don't know if I share than with someone who has a preconceived notion that I share their belief system (when maybe I really don't).

Schools were big ones. I've had more than one conversation at more than one school event that ventured into, "So, do you have a church?" That's an easy intro, btw. You're going to find out quickly whether the person is interested, and it's pretty easy to pivot lots of directions with it based on reaction. We're also in a conservative pocket of our city, so I think lots of people just assume it's a safe topic.

I can't really recall the last time I've been asked where I go to church. Been a decade plus. Was fairly common in the 90s at some point in small talk.

 

[Orange&Blue]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

i completely understand this point and have struggled myself with evangelism.

So, I'm going to try the approach from earlier by Penn Jillette. I've identified by neighbor who we've talked about politics, school, football, etc but never religion. I feel comfortable with him so I'm going to get a book or Bible, probably Case for Christ, write a short note on the inside cover and give it to him.

 

[Orange&Blue]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

Very good post. Out of curiosity, when these people "evangelize" to you, is that taking place at church (or someplace adjacent to that), or is it coming from people who don't already know that you're a church-goer? The reason why I ask is because it makes sense that people are more confident talking about their faith if they know they're talking to another believer, or somebody who is at least happy being around believers. I was always raised with the understanding that it's rude to talk about politics or religion in the workplace or casual social situations, but I wonder based on some of the comments in this thread if that's not really the case elsewhere in the country.

While I had casual conversations with co-workers about religion when I was working in an office environment, I wouldn't characterize any of them as coming close to evangelism. I think most would view that as relatively taboo, though churches certainly don't want people to feel that way. Lots of encouragement to do so in my experience.

Conversations about faith in church are easy. I don't even know if I'd consider that evangelism most of the time. People just like to share their stories with each other, especially in a setting they consider to be safe and supportive. Which, honestly, is probably the most uncomfortable situation for me. I find it easier to have a conversation with someone who has beliefs they don't know if I share than with someone who has a preconceived notion that I share their belief system (when maybe I really don't).

Schools were big ones. I've had more than one conversation at more than one school event that ventured into, "So, do you have a church?" That's an easy intro, btw. You're going to find out quickly whether the person is interested, and it's pretty easy to pivot lots of directions with it based on reaction. We're also in a conservative pocket of our city, so I think lots of people just assume it's a safe topic.

I can't really recall the last time I've been asked where I go to church. Been a decade plus. Was fairly common in the 90s at some point in small talk.

According to Pew Research Center 90% of Americans were considered Christian early 1970s. That number dropped to low 60s in 2018 and has probably dropped lower even more. With that considerable drop it's no longer assumed someone is a Christian so it's no longer a safe question/topic.

 

[Mister CIA]

I've been researching.

Sam Harris | #346 - The Best Kept Secret In History?

Sam Harris speaks with Brian Muraresku about ancient mystery religions and the possible psychedelic roots of Christianity.

www.samharris.org

 

[Zow]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

i completely understand this point and have struggled myself with evangelism.

So, I'm going to try the approach from earlier by Penn Jillette. I've identified by neighbor who we've talked about politics, school, football, etc but never religion. I feel comfortable with him so I'm going to get a book or Bible, probably Case for Christ, write a short note on the inside cover and give it to him.

Why?

 

[Mitchie]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

Very good post. Out of curiosity, when these people "evangelize" to you, is that taking place at church (or someplace adjacent to that), or is it coming from people who don't already know that you're a church-goer? The reason why I ask is because it makes sense that people are more confident talking about their faith if they know they're talking to another believer, or somebody who is at least happy being around believers. I was always raised with the understanding that it's rude to talk about politics or religion in the workplace or casual social situations, but I wonder based on some of the comments in this thread if that's not really the case elsewhere in the country.

While I had casual conversations with co-workers about religion when I was working in an office environment, I wouldn't characterize any of them as coming close to evangelism. I think most would view that as relatively taboo, though churches certainly don't want people to feel that way. Lots of encouragement to do so in my experience.

Conversations about faith in church are easy. I don't even know if I'd consider that evangelism most of the time. People just like to share their stories with each other, especially in a setting they consider to be safe and supportive. Which, honestly, is probably the most uncomfortable situation for me. I find it easier to have a conversation with someone who has beliefs they don't know if I share than with someone who has a preconceived notion that I share their belief system (when maybe I really don't).

Schools were big ones. I've had more than one conversation at more than one school event that ventured into, "So, do you have a church?" That's an easy intro, btw. You're going to find out quickly whether the person is interested, and it's pretty easy to pivot lots of directions with it based on reaction. We're also in a conservative pocket of our city, so I think lots of people just assume it's a safe topic.

I can't really recall the last time I've been asked where I go to church. Been a decade plus. Was fairly common in the 90s at some point in small talk.

According to Pew Research Center 90% of Americans were considered Christian early 1970s. That number dropped to low 60s in 2018 and has probably dropped lower even more. With that considerable drop it's no longer assumed someone is a Christian so it's no longer a safe question/topic.

Had my doubts so looked it up was surprised number used to be so high tbh (it's correct, and still low 60's, 63% as of 2021), interestingly, it's all gone into religiously unaffiliated (atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular") which has gone from 5 to 29% over the same period. That is quite a change over relatively speaking, not that long of a time period.

 

[BassNBrew]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

Very good post. Out of curiosity, when these people "evangelize" to you, is that taking place at church (or someplace adjacent to that), or is it coming from people who don't already know that you're a church-goer? The reason why I ask is because it makes sense that people are more confident talking about their faith if they know they're talking to another believer, or somebody who is at least happy being around believers. I was always raised with the understanding that it's rude to talk about politics or religion in the workplace or casual social situations, but I wonder based on some of the comments in this thread if that's not really the case elsewhere in the country.

While I had casual conversations with co-workers about religion when I was working in an office environment, I wouldn't characterize any of them as coming close to evangelism. I think most would view that as relatively taboo, though churches certainly don't want people to feel that way. Lots of encouragement to do so in my experience.

Conversations about faith in church are easy. I don't even know if I'd consider that evangelism most of the time. People just like to share their stories with each other, especially in a setting they consider to be safe and supportive. Which, honestly, is probably the most uncomfortable situation for me. I find it easier to have a conversation with someone who has beliefs they don't know if I share than with someone who has a preconceived notion that I share their belief system (when maybe I really don't).

Schools were big ones. I've had more than one conversation at more than one school event that ventured into, "So, do you have a church?" That's an easy intro, btw. You're going to find out quickly whether the person is interested, and it's pretty easy to pivot lots of directions with it based on reaction. We're also in a conservative pocket of our city, so I think lots of people just assume it's a safe topic.

I can't really recall the last time I've been asked where I go to church. Been a decade plus. Was fairly common in the 90s at some point in small talk.

According to Pew Research Center 90% of Americans were considered Christian early 1970s. That number dropped to low 60s in 2018 and has probably dropped lower even more. With that considerable drop it's no longer assumed someone is a Christian so it's no longer a safe question/topic.

Had my doubts so looked it up was surprised number used to be so high tbh (it's correct, and still low 60's, 63% as of 2021), interestingly, it's all gone into religiously unaffiliated (atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular") which has gone from 5 to 29% over the same period. That is quite a change over relatively speaking, not that long of a time period.

Look how quick views on gay marriage changed.

 

[BassNBrew]

From @dgreen post above.

From New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, by David Bivin:

How did the teachings of Jesus become our Gospels? How reliable are they at preserving Jesus’ words? Why are many of Jesus’ sayings in a different order in each Gospel? We can have a much better understanding of how the Gospels were written by looking at the unusual method used by first-century rabbis to accurately preserve their sayings over time.

It may surprise us that a disciple of a sage was not permitted to transmit in writing the words of his master. A rabbi’s teaching was considered “Oral Torah” (inspired, authoritative Scripture interpretation), and as such its transmission in writing was strongly prohibited. It therefore seems likely that Jesus’ first disciples would not have dared preserve his teaching in writing, but would have transmitted it orally. Rather than compromising Jesus’ words, this was more likely key to preserving them accurately for future generations.

We tend to view orally transmitted material as less trustworthy than material transmitted in writing. This is because we are familiar only with the oral transmission of myths such as Viking sagas, which were modified with each retelling. The so-called “Oral Hypothesis,” accepted by most New Testament scholars for nearly a century, is based on the assumption that gospel stories, faint memories of the original Semitic stories, are an oral development within the early Greek-speaking church. It is taken for granted that these stories were embellished by Greek-speaking teachers and preachers, growing to their present size as they were told and retold, only to be written down in Greek decades after the death of Jesus.

Oral transmission in rabbinic circles within first-century Jewish society was not at all like this. The transmission of oral literature by rabbis and their disciples approached 100% accuracy, far greater accuracy than could be achieved through written transmission. When literature is transmitted in hand-copied documents, inevitably mistakes known as “scribal errors” creep in. The rabbis were aware of this danger. They knew that if their literature were transmitted in writing, it would lose its high degree of accuracy. Therefore, they forbade its written transmission.

To illustrate, consider this version of Matthew 6:10: “Thy kingdom come, my will be done on earth as it is in heaven….” Because most Christians recall this line from memory, the smallest error leaps out. Similarly, when a saying is repeated orally in a community where it is known by several members, together they insure its accuracy. But if a saying is only preserved and transmitted in handwriting, the self-correction is absent. Any errors would unknowingly be perpetuated.

It is hard for us to appreciate the trustworthiness and accuracy of oral transmission within rabbinic circles of the first century. The disciple of a sage was not permitted to alter even one word of a tradition he had received from his teacher when quoting him to others. The disciple was also required to cite his sources. Thus, many rabbinic sayings are introduced, “Rabbi Y in the name of Rabbi X,” in other words, “Rabbi Y, who is transmitting a tradition he has received from Rabbi X.” It also is hard for us to appreciate the volume of orally transmitted material that disciples of a firstcentury rabbi had committed to memory. They knew an enormous amount of oral literature, including the Scriptures, the way Christians know the Lord’s Prayer.

Again, I'm sure it wasn't perfect. My point was I think it was different than the fun party game of Telephone.

I'm having a very hard time accepting the bolded statement. Did someone test them to determine oral transmission approached 100% accuracy? Did someone have them do this in both writing and orally in a double blind study and determine oral transmission was vastly superior?

 

[the moops]

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

Is this because there are no decent public schools in your area? Or some other reason?

 

[Zow]

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

Is this because there are no decent public schools in your area? Or some other reason?

A few reasons:
1. The school itself objectively rates well (though there are comparable public schools), is close to our house, and on a brand new campus. Since enrollment we're happy with it overall. Two of our kids are ADHD and have other behavioral issues due to in utero drug exposure and the teachers so far have handled them well and the small class sizes appear to be an advantage. I'd note that when my oldest daughter came to live with us a few years ago we enrolled her in a public school (thinking they may have more specialized resources) and the second day her teacher came out crying to my wife saying she was too much so we just made the quick decision to enroll her in the Catholic school (initially sans scholarship).
2. Both my wife and I attended Catholic school growing up (her through 8th grade, me pre-school through college) and think that the pros we experienced outweighed the cons as we both turned out okay in our opinion.
3. Because they're adopted through the foster care system they all receive scholarships to attend. So, financially there's little difference to us (we do voluntarily donate to the school).
4. Both my wife and I agreed early on that we should at least expose our children to the Catholic faith and let them choose later whether they want to continue with it (or any religion for that matter) so Catholic school is a nice way of doing it.

Two bonus factors which didn't really go into the initial decision are:
1. We are worried that our oldest daughter (for a long list of reasons which aren't our fault or hers, but can most succinctly be described as a combination of lack of impulse control + desire to be liked) will be more prone to pre-teen and teen behaviors such as drugs and sex so if the addition of the set moral code the school teaches regularly helps to keep her from making poor decisions in her teenage years we'll take it.
2. Their attendance really, really makes my mom and my father-in-law happy.

 

[Ilov80s]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

Very good post. Out of curiosity, when these people "evangelize" to you, is that taking place at church (or someplace adjacent to that), or is it coming from people who don't already know that you're a church-goer? The reason why I ask is because it makes sense that people are more confident talking about their faith if they know they're talking to another believer, or somebody who is at least happy being around believers. I was always raised with the understanding that it's rude to talk about politics or religion in the workplace or casual social situations, but I wonder based on some of the comments in this thread if that's not really the case elsewhere in the country.

While I had casual conversations with co-workers about religion when I was working in an office environment, I wouldn't characterize any of them as coming close to evangelism. I think most would view that as relatively taboo, though churches certainly don't want people to feel that way. Lots of encouragement to do so in my experience.

Conversations about faith in church are easy. I don't even know if I'd consider that evangelism most of the time. People just like to share their stories with each other, especially in a setting they consider to be safe and supportive. Which, honestly, is probably the most uncomfortable situation for me. I find it easier to have a conversation with someone who has beliefs they don't know if I share than with someone who has a preconceived notion that I share their belief system (when maybe I really don't).

Schools were big ones. I've had more than one conversation at more than one school event that ventured into, "So, do you have a church?" That's an easy intro, btw. You're going to find out quickly whether the person is interested, and it's pretty easy to pivot lots of directions with it based on reaction. We're also in a conservative pocket of our city, so I think lots of people just assume it's a safe topic.

I can't really recall the last time I've been asked where I go to church. Been a decade plus. Was fairly common in the 90s at some point in small talk.

According to Pew Research Center 90% of Americans were considered Christian early 1970s. That number dropped to low 60s in 2018 and has probably dropped lower even more. With that considerable drop it's no longer assumed someone is a Christian so it's no longer a safe question/topic.

Had my doubts so looked it up was surprised number used to be so high tbh (it's correct, and still low 60's, 63% as of 2021), interestingly, it's all gone into religiously unaffiliated (atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular") which has gone from 5 to 29% over the same period. That is quite a change over relatively speaking, not that long of a time period.

What is more interesting to me than the % that self identified is the % that participated regularly. My MIL is a good example. She was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school, sent her kids to a Catholic school and identifies as Catholic. She knows almost next to nothing about the Christian faith, she attends Church 2 days a year, makes no attempt to follow any particular ideology, eats meat on Fridays in Lent, etc. But she would for sure identify as Catholic if someone asked.

 

[Joe Bryant]

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

Is this because there are no decent public schools in your area? Or some other reason?

A few reasons:
1. The school itself objectively rates well (though there are comparable public schools), is close to our house, and on a brand new campus. Since enrollment we're happy with it overall. Two of our kids are ADHD and have other behavioral issues due to in utero drug exposure and the teachers so far have handled them well and the small class sizes appear to be an advantage. I'd note that when my oldest daughter came to live with us a few years ago we enrolled her in a public school (thinking they may have more specialized resources) and the second day her teacher came out crying to my wife saying she was too much so we just made the quick decision to enroll her in the Catholic school (initially sans scholarship).
2. Both my wife and I attended Catholic school growing up (her through 8th grade, me pre-school through college) and think that the pros we experienced outweighed the cons as we both turned out okay in our opinion.
3. Because they're adopted through the foster care system they all receive scholarships to attend. So, financially there's little difference to us (we do voluntarily donate to the school).
4. Both my wife and I agreed early on that we should at least expose our children to the Catholic faith and let them choose later whether they want to continue with it (or any religion for that matter) so Catholic school is a nice way of doing it.

Two bonus factors which didn't really go into the initial decision are:
1. We are worried that our oldest daughter (for a long list of reasons which aren't our fault or hers, but can most succinctly be described as a combination of lack of impulse control + desire to be liked) will be more prone to pre-teen and teen behaviors such as drugs and sex so if the addition of the set moral code the school teaches regularly helps to keep her from making poor decisions in her teenage years we'll take it.
2. Their attendance really, really makes my mom and my father-in-law happy.

A thought. I sometimes hear a criticsim of pro-life Christians that they care about an unborn baby, but once the baby is born, they no longer care as much. It's a fair discussion to care about (and care for) children before and after their born.

To that end, I admire what your school and the church is doing there literally putting their money where their mouth and waiving I'm sure thousands, maybe tens of thousands of dollars in tuition to give foster care children scholarships. That's also awesome your family is caring for the children and also donating to the school.

But that's a good example of a bigger picture caring for children from the school and church. And one that often doesn't get a ton of attention.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This also helps me better understand why your wife elbowed you when you "burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." ' during the school Christmas play.

 

[Psychopav]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why the Christian religion is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8.

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer and the absence of a woman's consent, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

From the book of Luke chapter 1. (New Living Translation)

The Birth of Jesus Foretold​

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings,[a] favored woman! The Lord is with you![b]”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. 36 What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. 37 For the word of God will never fail.[d]”

38 Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

Your post is a good reminder though. What Christians may see as sacred or holy with how a virgin could conceive and carry a baby that was the Son of God, others might see as ludicrous or funny or rape.

I was just genuinely taken aback by the language used in a kid's play where it was just so basic and blunt (and, under secular laws, very clearly rape by legal definition).

I paid attention in religion class the many years I attended so I understand the theological nuance to the exchange (I just hadn't thought about it for like ten years since I stopped practicing any religious faith). But, even the bold implies no choice on Mary's part so, again, to just some random outside God in this instance sounds objectively terrifying that he would appear to a young virgin and impregnate her as a pre-planned event and even though she becomes okay with it even by literal scripture it's clear that God was going to do it regardless.

I 100% believe you misheard this. In verse 38 above Mary clearly gives her consent. It has been tradition and what I have been taught my whole life that Mary could have said 'no'. In fact, Catholics refer to it using a particular term: Mary's fiat. In typographically speaking, Mary often represents the church itself, humanity's response to the Divne's offer of reconciliation. Her knowledge and consent are central to the theology here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why the Christian religion is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8.

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer and the absence of a woman's consent, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

From the book of Luke chapter 1. (New Living Translation)

The Birth of Jesus Foretold​

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings,[a] favored woman! The Lord is with you![b]”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. 36 What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. 37 For the word of God will never fail.[d]”

38 Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

Your post is a good reminder though. What Christians may see as sacred or holy with how a virgin could conceive and carry a baby that was the Son of God, others might see as ludicrous or funny or rape.

I was just genuinely taken aback by the language used in a kid's play where it was just so basic and blunt (and, under secular laws, very clearly rape by legal definition).

I paid attention in religion class the many years I attended so I understand the theological nuance to the exchange (I just hadn't thought about it for like ten years since I stopped practicing any religious faith). But, even the bold implies no choice on Mary's part so, again, to just some random outside God in this instance sounds objectively terrifying that he would appear to a young virgin and impregnate her as a pre-planned event and even though she becomes okay with it even by literal scripture it's clear that God was going to do it regardless.

I 100% believe you misheard this. In verse 38 above Mary clearly gives her consent. It has been tradition and what I have been taught my whole life that Mary could have said 'no'. In fact, Catholics refer to it using a particular term: Mary's fiat. In typographically speaking, Mary often represents the church itself, humanity's response to the Divne's offer of reconciliation. Her knowledge and consent are central to the theology here.

Thank you. That's how I'd always understood it as well. And part of why Mary is so revered in that she had a choice and made the choice that was pleasing to God.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

i completely understand this point and have struggled myself with evangelism.

So, I'm going to try the approach from earlier by Penn Jillette. I've identified by neighbor who we've talked about politics, school, football, etc but never religion. I feel comfortable with him so I'm going to get a book or Bible, probably Case for Christ, write a short note on the inside cover and give it to him.

And I know you know this but I don't think it's possible to stress it enough, how the message is received will be massively (maybe completely) influenced by what kind of neighbor you've been.

Jillette talked about how the guy was sincere and courteous. Even though he didn't know him, how the message was delivered was crucial. I've no doubt you've been a great neighbor, you are after all a Footballguy, and that will matter.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

i completely understand this point and have struggled myself with evangelism.

So, I'm going to try the approach from earlier by Penn Jillette. I've identified by neighbor who we've talked about politics, school, football, etc but never religion. I feel comfortable with him so I'm going to get a book or Bible, probably Case for Christ, write a short note on the inside cover and give it to him.

Why?

Can you elaborate on "why"? I'd assume it's for the reasons Jillette talked about on the video or @Terminalxylem has talked about here. If he cares for his neighbor, he'd want the neighbor to know.

For sure, some reasons are not noble. If a church is just trying to gain power or donors or sway public opinion, that's different. I could be wrong, but I don't get the feeling @Orange&Blue is trying to do that.

Or did you mean something different @Zow ?

 

[Zow]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why the Christian religion is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8.

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer and the absence of a woman's consent, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

From the book of Luke chapter 1. (New Living Translation)

The Birth of Jesus Foretold​

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings,[a] favored woman! The Lord is with you![b]”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. 36 What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. 37 For the word of God will never fail.[d]”

38 Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

Your post is a good reminder though. What Christians may see as sacred or holy with how a virgin could conceive and carry a baby that was the Son of God, others might see as ludicrous or funny or rape.

I was just genuinely taken aback by the language used in a kid's play where it was just so basic and blunt (and, under secular laws, very clearly rape by legal definition).

I paid attention in religion class the many years I attended so I understand the theological nuance to the exchange (I just hadn't thought about it for like ten years since I stopped practicing any religious faith). But, even the bold implies no choice on Mary's part so, again, to just some random outside God in this instance sounds objectively terrifying that he would appear to a young virgin and impregnate her as a pre-planned event and even though she becomes okay with it even by literal scripture it's clear that God was going to do it regardless.

I 100% believe you misheard this. In verse 38 above Mary clearly gives her consent. It has been tradition and what I have been taught my whole life that Mary could have said 'no'. In fact, Catholics refer to it using a particular term: Mary's fiat. In typographically speaking, Mary often represents the church itself, humanity's response to the Divne's offer of reconciliation. Her knowledge and consent are central to the theology here.

I am 100% certain I did not mishear it (though I recognize that for people of faith 100% belief without objective evidence is a common thing so you're free to go on with your unwavering belief as you choose). I also did not misread the Bible verse Joe quoted as I bolded the portions I referenced.

I also learned about Mary's fiat and discussed the issue multiple times throughout my training with Franciscan priests and Benedictine monks and priests (though my studies with them was admittedly more focus on the Deuteronomic books of the Old Testament). I acknowledge the interpretation and agree it's a central dogma to Catholic teaching (because, with Mary being born without original sign and the whole free will concept, the notion that she had no choice sounds incredibly dumb otherwise). My position is on is that, much like much of our catechism and the results from the Second Vatican Council (e.g. the newish theories of the multiple other ways to be baptized to end around the logistical problem of what happens to an new born infant who dies, a person living somewhere without Catholicism, etc.), the Catholic Church recognized the ugly optics of some of the scripture and prior dogmas and "fixed" them to make them more palatable to the masses.

A significant portion of why I laughed during the play is because of how straightforward and blatant it was and because it was inconsistent with the more advanced theological interpretation that the children will likely receive if they continue on with their Catholic teaching.

 

[Zow]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

i completely understand this point and have struggled myself with evangelism.

So, I'm going to try the approach from earlier by Penn Jillette. I've identified by neighbor who we've talked about politics, school, football, etc but never religion. I feel comfortable with him so I'm going to get a book or Bible, probably Case for Christ, write a short note on the inside cover and give it to him.

Why?

Can you elaborate on "why"? I'd assume it's for the reasons Jillette talked about on the video or @Terminalxylem has talked about here. If he cares for his neighbor, he'd want the neighbor to know.

For sure, some reasons are not noble. If a church is just trying to gain power or donors or sway public opinion, that's different. I could be wrong, but I don't get the feeling @Orange&Blue is trying to do that.

Or did you mean something different @Zow ?

I asked "why" because I'm genuinely curious of his answer and because I'm wondering whether he is at all worried about the potential negative impact it could have on his relationship with his neighbor.

Personally, I find the idea of Evangelism fascinating from an academic and philosophical perspective. I think this is because I was, once upon a time, fully invested in the faith - meaning I bought into the dogma that G/god is so rigid and unkind that the only way to get to Heaven was to die without a mortal sin on one's soul - so I completely understand the notion that if one truly believes that this is the only way to avoid Hell that such a person would desperately want to share this information with others so Evangelism appears rational in that sense. Of course, now that I don't follow any religious faith, I cannot help but think about the sheer audacity and self-aggrandizing an Evangelical exudes by trying to push his beliefs on others (while obviously believing that he knows better than his neighbor). Frankly, I view an Evangelical the same as I view a far right or far left leaning political person who blindly but openly tries to convince others of his position while ignoring any counterargument or even the possibility that he may be incorrect in his beliefs or that others have given the issues adequate thought and rationally and reasonably arrived at a different conclusion.

The above in mind and notwithstanding, I have actually defended Evangelicals (even though I now personally find them distasteful) to other atheists/agnostics I've spoken because I understand that there is an arguably benevolent motive to deeming it both appropriate and kind to push one's beliefs on another and that such a myopic view can be, under the circumstances, understandable. Of course, I also then find the unwilling recipient's potential reaction to think much less of the Evangelical very understandable as well so @Orange&Blue will hopefully engage in this exercise with his eyes wide open to the real possibility that his neighbor thinks less of him after his unsolicited attempt to turn his neighbor to a specific faith and that there relationship could very well be negatively impacted. On the flip side though, if @Orange&Blue is correct that his beliefs are the only way for his neighbor to get to Heaven, then @Orange&Blue is basically a hero.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why the Christian religion is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8.

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer and the absence of a woman's consent, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

From the book of Luke chapter 1. (New Living Translation)

The Birth of Jesus Foretold​

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings,[a] favored woman! The Lord is with you![b]”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. 36 What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. 37 For the word of God will never fail.[d]”

38 Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

Your post is a good reminder though. What Christians may see as sacred or holy with how a virgin could conceive and carry a baby that was the Son of God, others might see as ludicrous or funny or rape.

I was just genuinely taken aback by the language used in a kid's play where it was just so basic and blunt (and, under secular laws, very clearly rape by legal definition).

I paid attention in religion class the many years I attended so I understand the theological nuance to the exchange (I just hadn't thought about it for like ten years since I stopped practicing any religious faith). But, even the bold implies no choice on Mary's part so, again, to just some random outside God in this instance sounds objectively terrifying that he would appear to a young virgin and impregnate her as a pre-planned event and even though she becomes okay with it even by literal scripture it's clear that God was going to do it regardless.

I 100% believe you misheard this. In verse 38 above Mary clearly gives her consent. It has been tradition and what I have been taught my whole life that Mary could have said 'no'. In fact, Catholics refer to it using a particular term: Mary's fiat. In typographically speaking, Mary often represents the church itself, humanity's response to the Divne's offer of reconciliation. Her knowledge and consent are central to the theology here.

I am 100% certain I did not mishear it (though I recognize that for people of faith 100% belief without objective evidence is a common thing so you're free to go on with your unwavering belief as you choose). I also did not misread the Bible verse Joe quoted as I bolded the portions I referenced.

I also learned about Mary's fiat and discussed the issue multiple times throughout my training with Franciscan priests and Benedictine monks and priests (though my studies with them was admittedly more focus on the Deuteronomic books of the Old Testament). I acknowledge the interpretation and agree it's a central dogma to Catholic teaching (because, with Mary being born without original sign and the whole free will concept, the notion that she had no choice sounds incredibly dumb otherwise). My position is on is that, much like much of our catechism and the results from the Second Vatican Council (e.g. the newish theories of the multiple other ways to be baptized to end around the logistical problem of what happens to an new born infant who dies, a person living somewhere without Catholicism, etc.), the Catholic Church recognized the ugly optics of some of the scripture and prior dogmas and "fixed" them to make them more palatable to the masses.

A significant portion of why I laughed during the play is because of how straightforward and blatant it was and because it was inconsistent with the more advanced theological interpretation that the children will likely receive if they continue on with their Catholic teaching.

It's a little kid's Christmas play, not a seminar on Aquinas. Good job dunking on them, I guess.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

i completely understand this point and have struggled myself with evangelism.

So, I'm going to try the approach from earlier by Penn Jillette. I've identified by neighbor who we've talked about politics, school, football, etc but never religion. I feel comfortable with him so I'm going to get a book or Bible, probably Case for Christ, write a short note on the inside cover and give it to him.

Why?

Can you elaborate on "why"? I'd assume it's for the reasons Jillette talked about on the video or @Terminalxylem has talked about here. If he cares for his neighbor, he'd want the neighbor to know.

For sure, some reasons are not noble. If a church is just trying to gain power or donors or sway public opinion, that's different. I could be wrong, but I don't get the feeling @Orange&Blue is trying to do that.

Or did you mean something different @Zow ?

I asked "why" because I'm genuinely curious of his answer and because I'm wondering whether he is at all worried about the potential negative impact it could have on his relationship with his neighbor.

Personally, I find the idea of Evangelism fascinating from an academic and philosophical perspective. I think this is because I was, once upon a time, fully invested in the faith - meaning I bought into the dogma that G/god is so rigid and unkind that the only way to get to Heaven was to die without a mortal sin on one's soul - so I completely understand the notion that if one truly believes that this is the only way to avoid Hell that such a person would desperately want to share this information with others so Evangelism appears rational in that sense. Of course, now that I don't follow any religious faith, I cannot help but think about the sheer audacity and self-aggrandizing an Evangelical exudes by trying to push his beliefs on others (while obviously believing that he knows better than his neighbor). Frankly, I view an Evangelical the same as I view a far right or far left leaning political person who blindly but openly tries to convince others of his position while ignoring any counterargument or even the possibility that he may be incorrect in his beliefs or that others have given the issues adequate thought and rationally and reasonably arrived at a different conclusion.

The above in mind and notwithstanding, I have actually defended Evangelicals (even though I now personally find them distasteful) to other atheists/agnostics I've spoken because I understand that there is an arguably benevolent motive to deeming it both appropriate and kind to push one's beliefs on another and that such a myopic view can be, under the circumstances, understandable. Of course, I also then find the unwilling recipient's potential reaction to think much less of the Evangelical very understandable as well so @Orange&Blue will hopefully engage in this exercise with his eyes wide open to the real possibility that his neighbor thinks less of him after his unsolicited attempt to turn his neighbor to a specific faith and that there relationship could very well be negatively impacted. On the flip side though, if @Orange&Blue is correct that his beliefs are the only way for his neighbor to get to Heaven, then @Orange&Blue is basically a hero.

I'd assume he's well aware of the negative possibilities. And that's what I mean about how it's nice to hope everyone will be like Penn Jillette and be open and respect the sincerity. But I don't think that's realistic. I'm sure many do see them as people "who blindly but openly tries to convince others of his position while ignoring any counterargument or even the possibility that he may be incorrect in his beliefs or that others have given the issues adequate thought and rationally and reasonably arrived at a different conclusion."

I do however think more folks are like Jillette than many Christians think. And their fears may not be as big as they think they should be.

But clearly, there's potential for things to be worse for the relationship.

I think that's the primary reason more Christians aren't more open in sharing their faith.

 

[Zow]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why the Christian religion is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8.

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer and the absence of a woman's consent, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

From the book of Luke chapter 1. (New Living Translation)

The Birth of Jesus Foretold​

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings,[a] favored woman! The Lord is with you![b]”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. 36 What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. 37 For the word of God will never fail.[d]”

38 Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

Your post is a good reminder though. What Christians may see as sacred or holy with how a virgin could conceive and carry a baby that was the Son of God, others might see as ludicrous or funny or rape.

I was just genuinely taken aback by the language used in a kid's play where it was just so basic and blunt (and, under secular laws, very clearly rape by legal definition).

I paid attention in religion class the many years I attended so I understand the theological nuance to the exchange (I just hadn't thought about it for like ten years since I stopped practicing any religious faith). But, even the bold implies no choice on Mary's part so, again, to just some random outside God in this instance sounds objectively terrifying that he would appear to a young virgin and impregnate her as a pre-planned event and even though she becomes okay with it even by literal scripture it's clear that God was going to do it regardless.

I 100% believe you misheard this. In verse 38 above Mary clearly gives her consent. It has been tradition and what I have been taught my whole life that Mary could have said 'no'. In fact, Catholics refer to it using a particular term: Mary's fiat. In typographically speaking, Mary often represents the church itself, humanity's response to the Divne's offer of reconciliation. Her knowledge and consent are central to the theology here.

I am 100% certain I did not mishear it (though I recognize that for people of faith 100% belief without objective evidence is a common thing so you're free to go on with your unwavering belief as you choose). I also did not misread the Bible verse Joe quoted as I bolded the portions I referenced.

I also learned about Mary's fiat and discussed the issue multiple times throughout my training with Franciscan priests and Benedictine monks and priests (though my studies with them was admittedly more focus on the Deuteronomic books of the Old Testament). I acknowledge the interpretation and agree it's a central dogma to Catholic teaching (because, with Mary being born without original sign and the whole free will concept, the notion that she had no choice sounds incredibly dumb otherwise). My position is on is that, much like much of our catechism and the results from the Second Vatican Council (e.g. the newish theories of the multiple other ways to be baptized to end around the logistical problem of what happens to an new born infant who dies, a person living somewhere without Catholicism, etc.), the Catholic Church recognized the ugly optics of some of the scripture and prior dogmas and "fixed" them to make them more palatable to the masses.

A significant portion of why I laughed during the play is because of how straightforward and blatant it was and because it was inconsistent with the more advanced theological interpretation that the children will likely receive if they continue on with their Catholic teaching.

It's a little kid's Christmas play, not a seminar on Aquinas. Good job dunking on them, I guess.

I understand - which is why I'm not pulling them from the school for championing rape.

To circle back, my initial point in sharing on the experience was not to dunk on anybody but to share why some of the dogmas of the Christian/Catholic faith have been and will likely continue to be viewed as strange (and even horrific) as our society and culture continues to advance - especially by those who aren't learned in the faith or who have taken a step back from it for a significant amount of time.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So I was at my kids' Christmas pageant last week* and seeing this thread reminded me of a particular scene that I think exemplifies a bit why the Christian religion is no longer as prominent (at least in the USA). I'd note that these are kids in a play written for kids grades 1-8.

The below is as near as verbatim as I can recall...

Gabriel (to Mary in the middle of the night): I have wonderful news. God has chosen you and, despite your engagement to Joseph, He will appear in the middle of the night and put a baby inside of you that will become His son.
Mary: Do I have any say in the matter?
Gabriel: No.

At this point, hearing just the blatant and straightforward question and answer and the absence of a woman's consent, I burst into laughter and muttered to my wife "that's just rape, sounds like God may need a business card." This drew some stares and an elbow from my wife but, given that I've been away from the faith for so long and am therefore probably no longer desensitized to some of the more significant, well-accepted dogmas that would otherwise just sound objectively terrifying, it just hit me how ludicrous this Christian/Catholic faith must sound to non-believers and those not exposed to the dogmatic factual beliefs at an early age.

*While my wife and I don't practice and I'm probably just an atheist now, we do send our kids to Catholic school.

From the book of Luke chapter 1. (New Living Translation)

The Birth of Jesus Foretold​

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings,[a] favored woman! The Lord is with you![b]”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. 36 What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. 37 For the word of God will never fail.[d]”

38 Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

Your post is a good reminder though. What Christians may see as sacred or holy with how a virgin could conceive and carry a baby that was the Son of God, others might see as ludicrous or funny or rape.

I was just genuinely taken aback by the language used in a kid's play where it was just so basic and blunt (and, under secular laws, very clearly rape by legal definition).

I paid attention in religion class the many years I attended so I understand the theological nuance to the exchange (I just hadn't thought about it for like ten years since I stopped practicing any religious faith). But, even the bold implies no choice on Mary's part so, again, to just some random outside God in this instance sounds objectively terrifying that he would appear to a young virgin and impregnate her as a pre-planned event and even though she becomes okay with it even by literal scripture it's clear that God was going to do it regardless.

I 100% believe you misheard this. In verse 38 above Mary clearly gives her consent. It has been tradition and what I have been taught my whole life that Mary could have said 'no'. In fact, Catholics refer to it using a particular term: Mary's fiat. In typographically speaking, Mary often represents the church itself, humanity's response to the Divne's offer of reconciliation. Her knowledge and consent are central to the theology here.

I am 100% certain I did not mishear it (though I recognize that for people of faith 100% belief without objective evidence is a common thing so you're free to go on with your unwavering belief as you choose). I also did not misread the Bible verse Joe quoted as I bolded the portions I referenced.

I also learned about Mary's fiat and discussed the issue multiple times throughout my training with Franciscan priests and Benedictine monks and priests (though my studies with them was admittedly more focus on the Deuteronomic books of the Old Testament). I acknowledge the interpretation and agree it's a central dogma to Catholic teaching (because, with Mary being born without original sign and the whole free will concept, the notion that she had no choice sounds incredibly dumb otherwise). My position is on is that, much like much of our catechism and the results from the Second Vatican Council (e.g. the newish theories of the multiple other ways to be baptized to end around the logistical problem of what happens to an new born infant who dies, a person living somewhere without Catholicism, etc.), the Catholic Church recognized the ugly optics of some of the scripture and prior dogmas and "fixed" them to make them more palatable to the masses.

A significant portion of why I laughed during the play is because of how straightforward and blatant it was and because it was inconsistent with the more advanced theological interpretation that the children will likely receive if they continue on with their Catholic teaching.

It's a little kid's Christmas play, not a seminar on Aquinas. Good job dunking on them, I guess.

I understand - which is why I'm not pulling them from the school for championing rape.

To circle back, my initial point in sharing on the experience was not to drunk on anybody but to share why some of the dogmas of the Christian/Catholic faith have been and will likely continue to be viewed as strange (and even horrific) as our society and culture continues to advance - especially by those who aren't learned in the faith or who have taken a step back from it for a significant amount of time.

Understood. And I think it's good for Christians to remember there are folks that share your perspective. It's easy for us to get caught up in a day/event like this that is sacred for us. But the reality is we have to be empathetic.

 

[Orange&Blue]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

i completely understand this point and have struggled myself with evangelism.

So, I'm going to try the approach from earlier by Penn Jillette. I've identified by neighbor who we've talked about politics, school, football, etc but never religion. I feel comfortable with him so I'm going to get a book or Bible, probably Case for Christ, write a short note on the inside cover and give it to him.

Why?

Can you elaborate on "why"? I'd assume it's for the reasons Jillette talked about on the video or @Terminalxylem has talked about here. If he cares for his neighbor, he'd want the neighbor to know.

For sure, some reasons are not noble. If a church is just trying to gain power or donors or sway public opinion, that's different. I could be wrong, but I don't get the feeling @Orange&Blue is trying to do that.

Or did you mean something different @Zow ?

I asked "why" because I'm genuinely curious of his answer and because I'm wondering whether he is at all worried about the potential negative impact it could have on his relationship with his neighbor.

Personally, I find the idea of Evangelism fascinating from an academic and philosophical perspective. I think this is because I was, once upon a time, fully invested in the faith - meaning I bought into the dogma that G/god is so rigid and unkind that the only way to get to Heaven was to die without a mortal sin on one's soul - so I completely understand the notion that if one truly believes that this is the only way to avoid Hell that such a person would desperately want to share this information with others so Evangelism appears rational in that sense. Of course, now that I don't follow any religious faith, I cannot help but think about the sheer audacity and self-aggrandizing an Evangelical exudes by trying to push his beliefs on others (while obviously believing that he knows better than his neighbor). Frankly, I view an Evangelical the same as I view a far right or far left leaning political person who blindly but openly tries to convince others of his position while ignoring any counterargument or even the possibility that he may be incorrect in his beliefs or that others have given the issues adequate thought and rationally and reasonably arrived at a different conclusion.

The above in mind and notwithstanding, I have actually defended Evangelicals (even though I now personally find them distasteful) to other atheists/agnostics I've spoken because I understand that there is an arguably benevolent motive to deeming it both appropriate and kind to push one's beliefs on another and that such a myopic view can be, under the circumstances, understandable. Of course, I also then find the unwilling recipient's potential reaction to think much less of the Evangelical very understandable as well so @Orange&Blue will hopefully engage in this exercise with his eyes wide open to the real possibility that his neighbor thinks less of him after his unsolicited attempt to turn his neighbor to a specific faith and that there relationship could very well be negatively impacted. On the flip side though, if @Orange&Blue is correct that his beliefs are the only way for his neighbor to get to Heaven, then @Orange&Blue is basically a hero.

I've known them for a while, and if we can discuss politics why can't we discuss religion?

 

[rockaction]

I trained with Dominicans. And then I trained with the Jamaicans. All they left me with was this dutty rock upon which to build my boombasta church.

 

[rockaction]

We are worried that our oldest daughter (for a long list of reasons which aren't our fault or hers, but can most succinctly be described as a combination of lack of impulse control + desire to be liked) will be more prone to pre-teen and teen behaviors such as drugs and sex so if the addition of the set moral code the school teaches regularly helps to keep her from making poor decisions in her teenage years we'll take it.

I'm going to go with you just answered one of the central questions of the poll, but you keep forward moving with your argument about the "rape" of Mary in a kid's play.

 

[Zow]

We are worried that our oldest daughter (for a long list of reasons which aren't our fault or hers, but can most succinctly be described as a combination of lack of impulse control + desire to be liked) will be more prone to pre-teen and teen behaviors such as drugs and sex so if the addition of the set moral code the school teaches regularly helps to keep her from making poor decisions in her teenage years we'll take it.

I'm going to go with you just answered one of the central questions of the poll, but you keep forward moving with your argument about the "rape" of Mary in a kid's play.

I voted good for this very reason fwiw.

 

[Zow]

I attend church regularly. I tithe. I try to be pretty open-minded to it, but I can't claim I've found much in the way of faith over the years.

I think the answer to the lack of evangelism is at least partially a lack of confidence people have in their own ability to answer questions or challenges that might come from the people to whom they are speaking. People who are confident in their faith and understanding of it, in my experience, tend to like to over-evangelize.

Even as someone who doesn't particularly care to be on the receiving end of those messages, I find those people and their varied beliefs much more interesting. It sometimes leads to the more compelling conversation at this particular point in our country's history - the one we can't have here. And the one I find much more confounding than belief itself.

i completely understand this point and have struggled myself with evangelism.

So, I'm going to try the approach from earlier by Penn Jillette. I've identified by neighbor who we've talked about politics, school, football, etc but never religion. I feel comfortable with him so I'm going to get a book or Bible, probably Case for Christ, write a short note on the inside cover and give it to him.

Why?

Can you elaborate on "why"? I'd assume it's for the reasons Jillette talked about on the video or @Terminalxylem has talked about here. If he cares for his neighbor, he'd want the neighbor to know.

For sure, some reasons are not noble. If a church is just trying to gain power or donors or sway public opinion, that's different. I could be wrong, but I don't get the feeling @Orange&Blue is trying to do that.

Or did you mean something different @Zow ?

I asked "why" because I'm genuinely curious of his answer and because I'm wondering whether he is at all worried about the potential negative impact it could have on his relationship with his neighbor.

Personally, I find the idea of Evangelism fascinating from an academic and philosophical perspective. I think this is because I was, once upon a time, fully invested in the faith - meaning I bought into the dogma that G/god is so rigid and unkind that the only way to get to Heaven was to die without a mortal sin on one's soul - so I completely understand the notion that if one truly believes that this is the only way to avoid Hell that such a person would desperately want to share this information with others so Evangelism appears rational in that sense. Of course, now that I don't follow any religious faith, I cannot help but think about the sheer audacity and self-aggrandizing an Evangelical exudes by trying to push his beliefs on others (while obviously believing that he knows better than his neighbor). Frankly, I view an Evangelical the same as I view a far right or far left leaning political person who blindly but openly tries to convince others of his position while ignoring any counterargument or even the possibility that he may be incorrect in his beliefs or that others have given the issues adequate thought and rationally and reasonably arrived at a different conclusion.

The above in mind and notwithstanding, I have actually defended Evangelicals (even though I now personally find them distasteful) to other atheists/agnostics I've spoken because I understand that there is an arguably benevolent motive to deeming it both appropriate and kind to push one's beliefs on another and that such a myopic view can be, under the circumstances, understandable. Of course, I also then find the unwilling recipient's potential reaction to think much less of the Evangelical very understandable as well so @Orange&Blue will hopefully engage in this exercise with his eyes wide open to the real possibility that his neighbor thinks less of him after his unsolicited attempt to turn his neighbor to a specific faith and that there relationship could very well be negatively impacted. On the flip side though, if @Orange&Blue is correct that his beliefs are the only way for his neighbor to get to Heaven, then @Orange&Blue is basically a hero.

I've known them for a while, and if we can discuss politics why can't we discuss religion?

You can.

 

[rockaction]

I voted good for this very reason fwiw.

Without being a jerk, if you voted "good," then you voted that the loss of religion was a good thing, which seems antithetical to your point about your daughter.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in the poll question. I wonder how many people confused what I was asking and if the results don't reflect that.

 

[Mitchie]

I voted good for this very reason fwiw.

Without being a jerk, if you voted "good," then you voted that the loss of religion was a good thing, which seems antithetical to your point about your daughter.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in the poll question. I wonder how many people confused what I was asking and if the results don't reflect that.

not really antithetical, he could view religion as potentially having some positive benefits, but overall having a negative impact on society.

and not sure what you mean by being more clear in the question

 

[AAABatteries]

Perhaps I should have been more clear in the poll question. I wonder how many people confused what I was asking and if the results don't reflect that.

I’d say several folks have taken a myopic view and only considered their religion or experiences - I know I have at times.

 

[Zow]

I voted good for this very reason fwiw.

Without being a jerk, if you voted "good," then you voted that the loss of religion was a good thing, which seems antithetical to your point about your daughter.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in the poll question. I wonder how many people confused what I was asking and if the results don't reflect that.

Oh, you’re right. Sorry I had had an edible last night.

Now that I’m clear-headed, I believe I voted good because it’d be best for society overall. You’re right that for my one daughter specifically, I view religion as a currently good thing.

Obviously this isn’t a black and white issue and the pros and cons can weigh differently when applied to certain individuals.

 

[massraider]

Obviously this isn’t a black and white issue and the pros and cons can weigh differently when applied to certain individuals.

Or certain groups of individuals.

 

[Zow]

Obviously this isn’t a black and white issue and the pros and cons can weigh differently when applied to certain individuals.

Or certain groups of individuals.

Correct as well.

 

[Sullie]

For anyone struggling to get started on their journey I found this today. I hope this helps.