Does the Church have a future?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby promethean75 » Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:49 pm

I read through your post again and you're all over the place. It's almost menoish, but with proper spelling and punctuation. I feel like there isn't going to be much organization in what will end up being a very short exchange between us. I just can't follow or make much sense out of what you're saying except in little fits and starts.

Here is something:

"The thing is that much of nature does appear to be enchanted, and we even speak of being enchanted by something delightful."

What do you mean by 'enchanted'? A good feeling? An inability to explain something, why it exists, how and what caused it, etc?

If so, what would be the proper method and manner to obtain explanations for such? Do you just make up an explanation, or do you set forth theories that can be tested?

There is certainly that inwardness of feeling of awe at all that exists, but we can't get so excited that we outrun our own science in our search for explanations. Leave that to the philosophers.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5707
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby promethean75 » Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:06 pm

"As long as we are still busy with these questions, I think that the attempt to ridicule narratives that have helped people find direction is an obvious sign of haughtiness and conceit, whereas in the face of existence humility would be better advised."

Lol. That's like saying the bubonic plague was a good thing because it brought families together.

That crap helped people 'find direction' because they were already miserable and lost as a direct result of the sabotage they had to endure by the ruling class and their state. Make them miserable, then offer them help. A double whammy.

Try this: everything man needs to be happy in his mortal life can be provided without recourse to religious thought or practice.

I am perfectly at ease with my own mortality and death... and just knowing that human life will go on after I'm gone is enough to satisfy me. Keep in mind, B... it just might be a one-shot deal...

Well I mean 'maybe' go on, if religion and capitalism doesn't wipe it all out.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5707
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Bob » Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:48 pm

promethean75 wrote:"I think the reason for this is the language we speak is limited and we use metaphor all the time, also anthropomorphic metaphor."

Rather the world is limited by our language, not vice-versa. What's implicit in your statement is that there is something more about the world that we have no language to describe. But, If this is the case, how do you know this 'something more' exists if you have neither word nor concept to describe and know it exists? Ah! And it is precisely such confusion that inspired philosophers to invent nonsensical concepts which they then imposed on nature and the world around them. There is a veritable encyclopedia of such super-empirical nonsense originated by the greeks that has now become 'part of the philosophical furniture', as Rosa put it. And it was not by accident that the specific nature of such armchair pseudo-empiricism and the concepts developed therein were identical to and representational of, the organization of the state. You will find much more about this at the site I linked to.

I think that the problem with this is that you assume that I know of “something more”. The problem is with the word “thing”, some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described. It is the fact that we haven’t really ascertained what it is our brains are blocking out, leaving it to people using psychoactive substances to restrict that function of their brain and give us some idea of what they experience, or people who have the same experience by way of an illness, that suggests that we only see what our brains let us see. Even the fact that what we do see is affected by us seeing it suggests that there are processes happening here that we still don’t understand fully.

We know how consciousness works in the brain, but not where it comes from. There is much to suggest that the brain is a receptor of consciousness, much like a radio, and that the internal workings of the brain cause relational processes, splitting our perceptions, allowing two kinds of interaction with the world. There are many questions that need to be answered, but the world of “things” is very inadequate. It is also the reason why Iain McGilchrist wrote a book called “The Matter With Things”, in which he writes:
My aim is to clear away the assumptions that cloud our vision: and the assumption of a materialist world composed of ‘things’ is the greatest impediment we face. In an obvious sense, there are things: my hope is that the reader will not abandon them, but reconceive them in a richer way.
McGilchrist, Iain (2021-11-09). The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World. Perspectiva Press. Kindle-Version.


I think that there is an unfathomed potential in our existence of which we have yet no idea which emerges by means of relationships and interactions, and which not only affects me, but I influence it. It is a potential that cannot be named as yet, and the experience of potential has fascinated humanity since we have been able to think. It the presumption that thinkers in the past were “indolent” and that we are diligent, industrious and advanced, despite the fact that we build on the potential they brought into being, that annoys me most. In a world of unfathomable potential, what is certain?

That is the content of the problem. Now here is the form, or why these thinkers had no other way of understanding nature and the world. Observing cycles, patterns, ordered relationships between objects and forces, and animal life, thinkers could only imagine that this was the result of a 'will', since they observe the same behavior in themselves as they do in nature. Therefore, if their own behavior is intentional, motivated, deliberate and purposeful, so too must be the behavior of nature . Ergo; there is a guiding 'will' that has established 'laws' which organizes and dictates what nature must do and be like.

You obviously overlooked (at best) or ignored what I said. The simplistic way in which you refer to the people of the past, who invented words for experiences they had, upon which you build, is consternating. Of course, they will have discovered similarities in their own behaviour, and considered the possibility of intention behind what they see. It is the natural thing for someone to do and it isn’t something that we should criticise, because as children, we did that too. It is only because we went to school that we learnt other explanations. However, the fact that on our planet (as I said) “a such vast diversity of life emerged that, even if you know the theory of evolution, you can’t help but shake your head in disbelief. Add to that the fact that we also emerged out of these primal beginnings, and consciousness: the ability to study and understand those processes. The idea that there was a blueprint for all this somewhere is still in the minds of even the least religious of people.”

That is why to call these thoughts “nonsense” betrays a degree of ignorance that people back then would have found amusing. It is as though you are making fun out a baby because it isn’t articulate and doesn’t understand arithmetic. Everything has its time and we are in the fortunate position to live at a time when so very many people before us have, by trial and error, discovered how some things really work.

The fact is, the modern intellectual world is so entrenched in this nonsense that people like yourself exist in a kind of mental hypnosis, repeating what has passed as 'rational thinking' for centuries, and which is anything but rational.

Yo but that was a long post of yours and I ain't gonna tackle it all at once. I should also say that I'm not arguing for the author of that quote, so I don't want to be liable or responsible for defending it. That would be the author's business. I merely give you my interpretation of the material as I understand it. My responses are not the author's, so keep that in mind.

Also, you and I both know that you will learn nothing in our exchanges here, and that there is no changing your mind, especially at your age and with your education. So don't take this to heart or too seriously. I'm moreso using you as an example.

I can’t remember ever saying that ancient religious thought was rational, especially not by today’s standards. The point is though, rationality isn’t always the measure we need.

As Sass and Pienkos point out: ‘The most deluded patients with schizophrenia tend to be those whose thinking is more logical.’ This is in line with Eugène Minkowski’s insight that the problem in psychosis is not loss of reason, but its hypertrophy: ‘The mad person is much less frequently “irrational” than is believed: perhaps, indeed, he is never irrational at all.’
McGilchrist, Iain (2021-11-09). The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World. Perspectiva Press. Kindle-Version.


Rationality is, then, devoid of all else, psychotic. I think that there are so many other aspects of existence that show us that the common materialistic/mechanistic view of existence is short-sighted, and also narrow-minded. I will admit that there are many people, especially amongst religionists, who are as equally narrow-minded, but that doesn’t help us much. We all have to broad our horizons in order to get the bigger picture.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby promethean75 » Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:03 pm

More tasty treats for ya (same site):

The Ancient (ideological) turn to this new conception of reality clearly mirrored the pseudo-democratisation that took place classical Greece in and around the fifth century BC -- based as the latter was on slavery.

It was now expedient for theorists to transform the earlier personified powers of the 'gods' into impersonal 'forces' and 'laws' in order to provide a more relevant and persuasive rationale for these new forms of class domination (wherein kings and queens no longer ruled, these having been replaced by oligarchies, dictatorships, or early forms of republican government). Warring, envious and capricious gods (which in effect helped rationalise the interpersonal rivalries between warring royal families) had to be tamed and transformed into the aforementioned impersonal forces, principles and laws. Even so, where necessary the latter were still under the control either of a single Supreme 'Deity', or a Supreme Rational Principle, an Absolute. Naturally, a properly ordered Polis had to reflect a similarly 'rational' cosmic order.

Nevertheless, this change still preserved the anthropomorphic and animistic overtones of the old way of seeing things --, even if this was now much harder to see.

Once more, this novel and class-motivated world-view was clearly aimed at demonstrating why nature and society had to be the way they were, linking the power of the State to the necessary structure of 'Being'.


Siriusly bro, that girl is on fire.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5707
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Bob » Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:11 pm

Now you are being "indolent"!
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby felix dakat » Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:35 pm

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:The church was a hierarchy based on a hierarchical vision of reality. Protestantism was predicated on the idea that anyone could read and understand the truth of the Bible.

I have said in the past that I believed that the church needed an update, because the hierarchy it proposes is based on a royal court, and its churches supported the idea of a court of law. In Europe, despite the many buildings that still are in that fashion, there was a move in 20th century to change the roles to some degree. Of course, the Roman Catholic retained the formal structure, but many protestant congregations took on different ones. In my mind, the re-enactment of the narrative would be best suited in a church that resembled a theatre. Now, I don’t know how the meetings of the young church were held, but there is the suggestion between the lines of Paul's letters, that it was quite lively.

I have been at odds with the belief that anyone could read the Bible, as suggested by Luther and others, who translated the original languages into the vernacular, but the result was that wars were fought, and protestant churches split into ever more schisms, sects and factions. This may represent an early diversity of the young church, which the Roman Catholic church tried to reign in after Constantine, but it also led to people arguing over the letter instead of being led by the spirit, as St. Paul warned. The Gospels, written after the letters, focussed on a narrative of a man telling stories, who was found to be the son of God. I think that we need to retain this spirit in the services held.

felix dakat wrote:That premise undermined the hierarchy of authority and began a process which led to modernity's flatland view of reality. The cracks in that worldview are beginning to show. But the light shining through those cracks reveals the institutional Church in a fragmented and largely corrupt state of being. So it seems that the future of the church depends on the power of the sources of renewal and the openness of people to them. I don't know what that would look like. But in the first century Jesus and his little band of Galilean followers didn't look like a movement that would take over the world so...

We still have the structure of the Roman Catholic church and yes, the cracks are appearing (again) revealing the consequences of wrong dogma and corruption, which has always been there. The role of women, the pillars of the church over millennia, has been played down to this day, but is mostly responsible for keeping parishes organised and functioning. The number of women Pastors in the protestant church (where it is allowed) has grown considerably, and their influence as storytellers is being felt. Although it is the continuing scandals of the men that saps their strength, even if the women represent a different approach to religiosity.

I feel that the attention to particulars, the letters of the bible, rather than taking a holistic approach, incorporating the various social factors, the healing aspect of the gospel, and the call to gather in those people who are without public prestige if the so-called ‘respectable’ people don’t want to gather, is probably a way ahead. But the church must be transparent and far from any suggestion of corruption and abuse; quite the opposite, it must find a way to promote love again, which is the founding concept, which it must practise from the bottom up.


The Protestant reformers would have been closer to the truth if they had said no one can understand the Bible including the Pope and they themselves.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10094
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Mad Man P » Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:09 pm

Bob wrote:We still have the structure of the Roman Catholic church and yes, the cracks are appearing (again) revealing the consequences of wrong dogma and corruption, which has always been there.


The catholic church sports a whopping 1.3 billions subscribers worldwide and makes up the lion's share of christians...
Their version is and always was, the flagship of christianity in our world. Telling an atheist they are wrong is not news to the atheist.
But what they believe is far more consequential than what any protestant denomination teaches or what any individual who cares to call themselves christian believes.

If christianity was different and more like what you think it ought to be... it would be different... trivially true.
But you keep suggesting it IS different and the catholic church is an aberration... but this is the mainstream and most successful version of christianity and you're just wrong.

felix dakat wrote:The Protestant reformers would have been closer to the truth if they had said no one can understand the Bible including the Pope and they themselves.

:lol:

It would have been better to declare it incomprehensible nonsense... I agree.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Bob » Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:30 pm

felix dakat wrote:The Protestant reformers would have been closer to the truth if they had said no one can understand the Bible including the Pope and they themselves.

I don't think that is true, but it is true that when you start creating dogmatic statements, it draws away from the narrative, makes everything very messy and ugly. The strength of the Catholic church was the way it portrayed mystery.

The truth emerges from the narration, and I think people sense that when hearing a story. The problem is that we have few people in the church who can tell a story in the way needed.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Bob » Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:52 pm

Mad Man P wrote:The catholic church sports a whopping 1.3 billions subscribers worldwide and makes up the lion's share of christians...
Their version is and always was, the flagship of christianity in our world.

Women have been more religiously devout than men in Western society at least since the rise of Christianity; indeed, by some metrics, the 19th-century church may have had an even bigger gender imbalance than today. Mothers have also been the natural storytellers, but it is men who make the decisions. Unfortunately, women have virtually run the church in many cases, but are relegated to behind the men.

Telling an atheist they are wrong is not news to the atheist.
But what they believe is far more consequential than what any protestant denomination teaches or what any individual who cares to call themselves christian believes.

No, what I am saying is that the Catholic Church has done itself a disservice in its decision making. In many ways I am closer to the Catholic Church than the Protestant, but many decisions have led to catastrophe. For me one of the biggest mistakes was a compulsory celibacy, which has led to sexual abuse of those given into custodial care.

If christianity was different and more like what you think it ought to be... it would be different... trivially true.
But you keep suggesting it IS different and the catholic church is an aberration... but this is the mainstream and most successful version of christianity and you're just wrong.

If Christianity was a piece of orchestrated music, it would play wonderfully, except for periodic discordant clashes and dissonant overtones, and there would be an instrument missing.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby felix dakat » Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:37 pm

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:The Protestant reformers would have been closer to the truth if they had said no one can understand the Bible including the Pope and they themselves.

I don't think that is true, but it is true that when you start creating dogmatic statements, it draws away from the narrative, makes everything very messy and ugly. The strength of the Catholic church was the way it portrayed mystery.

The truth emerges from the narration, and I think people sense that when hearing a story. The problem is that we have few people in the church who can tell a story in the way needed.


It isn't absolutely true. But it's closer to the truth. And in your statement we see an apparent contradiction. The Catholic church was the very model of authoritarian dogma and yet you claim its strength was it's portrayal of the ultimate mystery. History show the Catholic Church was a rich amalgam of truth and lies. With protestantism it became a cacophony of division and confusion. In the Bible Belt where I live there's a "church" on just about every street corner. When I was growing up the man on TV said "go to the church of your choice." The church had become another purveyor of a product in a consumer society. It's a miracle that anyone can hear the voice of one's own soul over the din of the religious marketplace.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10094
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Mad Man P » Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:51 pm

Bob wrote:No, what I am saying is that the Catholic Church has done itself a disservice in its decision making. In many ways I am closer to the Catholic Church than the Protestant, but many decisions have led to catastrophe. For me one of the biggest mistakes was a compulsory celibacy, which has led to sexual abuse of those given into custodial care.


Surprisingly you said very little that I don't agree with fully. Though perhaps my bias makes me inclined to worry less about how such teachings did the church "itself" a disservice... and find myself worry more about the people and children that suffered at their hands and consider consequently the liabilities of religious devotion.

I believe studies have shown women to be more religiously inclined and devout cross culturally... most pre-christian pagan traditions had women serve as the main conduit to the gods and their will. Oracles and soothsayers were far more commonly women. IOW, good chance this isn't a western christian phenomena but perhaps something with a biological basis.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:48 pm

Bob wrote:To be honest, I have never met a Christianity literate person in my family. It may be just my family, but I don’t think so. In the UK, in Australia and New Zeeland I’ve have met a similar confabulation of what church is about, and even if I’m no traditionalist, I found when visiting a CofE service that it was still held like Roman Catholic services here in Germany. There didn’t seem to be a lot of power behind it and the sermon was weak, but it was still recognisable.

I am saying that from the garbage that I’ve heard said about Christianity, nobody I have met who was critical of the church, really knew what it was about. It isn’t that I uphold the traditional view, but when criticism then I had expected informed criticism. It was, to me, a complete lack of interest rather than people who “want no part of it!”


So you are claiming the Christianity is so esoteric that millions of people are incapable of understanding it?

If think people whose families have to attending church for generation know only too well about the garbage offered by Chritianity, and that your own ideocentric version is just one more amongst many.
You share with Felix a large dose of arrogance, that you both seem to think that your own personal understanding of this disparate set of religions is better than others.
Let's say that your claim that you know more about Christianity than millions of "flock" who have been turning away from the church for the last couple of generations.
Can you answer what chance does the average person have in achieving the will of god for their lives and winning their reward when it is so hard to undeerstand wtf you are suppose to do to be a good christian?
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Bob » Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:41 am

felix dakat wrote: … in your statement we see an apparent contradiction. The Catholic church was the very model of authoritarian dogma and yet you claim its strength was it's portrayal of the ultimate mystery. History show the Catholic Church was a rich amalgam of truth and lies. With protestantism it became a cacophony of division and confusion. In the Bible Belt where I live there's a "church" on just about every street corner. When I was growing up the man on TV said "go to the church of your choice." The church had become another purveyor of a product in a consumer society. It's a miracle that anyone can hear the voice of one's own soul over the din of the religious marketplace.

In a way, my view of the church is probably formed by the vision of a woman who is cruelly silenced and abused by her sons. There are many aspects that have this drama in it. The image of the mother Mary having her beloved son taken from her and crucified, the son whose teaching appealed to women, and who sought out the female attributes in men, but making them thereby as endangered as women have always been. It is as though the mother Mary was rightly held up as a model of the church, whilst the sons imprisoned and overruled her.

The feminine intuition was accused of causing the fall of ‘man’, despite being the sacred mother of all, despite being the divine feminine, she was regarded as weak and vulnerable. She has been hidden away, and for a long time made afraid to make her full debut. She hasn’t had a safe place for expression, except in spaces that she has made for herself. Maternal affection is probably the first experience that people have of love, of nurture and encouragement, inspiration and empowerment, and nature. I feel that the Gospel implies many of these aspects of femininity. The fruits of the Spirit, listed as “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness”, are attributes most commonly found in women.

Of course, we do have the women who have been utilised by men to serve their desire, and they can also fall into “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, and wild parties” along with men. It is the disloyal Israel that is compared to an adulterous wife in the OT, but the church is seen as the antithesis of this, despite men having demoted women to the pews and to the service that they often only symbolically demonstrate.

Therefore, we have this dissonance that we kick at, and abuse further, despite it still being the women that are the victims and, at the same time, the pillars of the church. It is perhaps this vision that explains the strange relationship with the church that I have and the contradictions that we observe.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Bob » Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:56 am

Sculptor wrote:So you are claiming the Christianity is so esoteric that millions of people are incapable of understanding it?

If think people whose families have to attending church for generation know only too well about the garbage offered by Chritianity, and that your own ideocentric version is just one more amongst many.
You share with Felix a large dose of arrogance, that you both seem to think that your own personal understanding of this disparate set of religions is better than others.
Let's say that your claim that you know more about Christianity than millions of "flock" who have been turning away from the church for the last couple of generations.
Can you answer what chance does the average person have in achieving the will of god for their lives and winning their reward when it is so hard to undeerstand wtf you are suppose to do to be a good christian?

Thank you for your abuse and lack of understanding. I find it fitting to a degree, because the contradiction that the church is, is one that the world only entertains when it is feeling emotional. In a way, as I implied above, the church comes across as a man in drag. Many of the attributes we associate with femininity are professed by men, but rarely in an authentic way. The church is supposed to be the antithesis of the adulteress wife, the bride of Christ, and Mary is the glowing mother held up for all to see – by men.

Women have tried to drive the car, despite them sitting in the backseat, and the supposed driver being drunk in the front. It hasn’t worked. That is why people have been getting out, appalled at the driving, the damaged caused and the attitude of the male driver. As well as trying to steer the vehicle, women have tried to care for the passengers, but the erratic driving has often made that difficult.

Does that explain it any better?

(see also my answer to Felix)
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby felix dakat » Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:13 pm

I bumped into this article online:

"German Bishop Heiner Wilmer, who is reportedly close to Pope Francis, has claimed that the Catholic Church has utterly gambled away people's trust in the institution by the way it has mishandled the clergy sex abuse crisis. Protecting the institution and the perpetrators was always the most important factor for the Church. (Protecting) the victims, on the other hand, simply did not occur, said the 60-year-old Bishop Wilmer, head of the northern German Diocese of Hildesheim. He made his remarks to some 200 representatives of religious, social and political groups who were gathered for an annual diocesan-sponsored reception in Hannover.The bishop was filling in for Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who had to cancel his participation after he tested positive for the coronavirus. Wilmer, whose address was titled SOS -- It is no less a matter of saving our souls , warned that the Catholic Church would no longer be able to play a dominant role in society. The Church as an institution will shrink and will be far more modest. It will just be one voice among many offering to explain the sense of life on earth, he said.While it will be smaller, it will be ecumenical. Our faith will cover a smaller area but will grow in depth and in its Biblical roots, he predicted.Heiner Wilmer was completing his third year as the worldwide superior general of the Dehonians (Priests of the Sacred Heart) in 2018 when the pope picked him to be bishop of Hildesheim. And many in Germany say the former head of the Dehonians is truly a Francis bishop . He concentrated on three key questions during his address in Hannover: How much say do bishops still have today? What are people looking for? And are the Churches still of any use today? Bishop Wilmer said the times when bishops could treat people condescendingly from above in a patronizing way, let alone consider themselves above the law , are now over."

His view of things seems plausible to me as an outsider.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10094
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Bob » Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:18 pm

felix dakat wrote:I bumped into this article online:

"German Bishop Heiner Wilmer, who is reportedly close to Pope Francis, has claimed that the Catholic Church has utterly gambled away people's trust in the institution by the way it has mishandled the clergy sex abuse crisis. Protecting the institution and the perpetrators was always the most important factor for the Church. (Protecting) the victims, on the other hand, simply did not occur, said the 60-year-old Bishop Wilmer, head of the northern German Diocese of Hildesheim. He made his remarks to some 200 representatives of religious, social and political groups who were gathered for an annual diocesan-sponsored reception in Hannover.The bishop was filling in for Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who had to cancel his participation after he tested positive for the coronavirus. Wilmer, whose address was titled SOS -- It is no less a matter of saving our souls , warned that the Catholic Church would no longer be able to play a dominant role in society. The Church as an institution will shrink and will be far more modest. It will just be one voice among many offering to explain the sense of life on earth, he said.While it will be smaller, it will be ecumenical. Our faith will cover a smaller area but will grow in depth and in its Biblical roots, he predicted.Heiner Wilmer was completing his third year as the worldwide superior general of the Dehonians (Priests of the Sacred Heart) in 2018 when the pope picked him to be bishop of Hildesheim. And many in Germany say the former head of the Dehonians is truly a Francis bishop . He concentrated on three key questions during his address in Hannover: How much say do bishops still have today? What are people looking for? And are the Churches still of any use today? Bishop Wilmer said the times when bishops could treat people condescendingly from above in a patronizing way, let alone consider themselves above the law , are now over."

His view of things seems plausible to me as an outsider.

Yes, very much so. There are numerous Catholics that I know who are very angry at their church leaders because of the way things have been hushed up for decades (at least). Like I said, the women are the most reliable, and they have started holding circles outside of the church, as well as meeting when Mass is held. A while ago I was asked to speak at a meeting, but it wasn't a good time for me, so I had to say no. I found it strange because I'm not a Catholic, but I suppose they know me from ecumenical events we have held in the district, and there were quite a lot of Catholic women at a Bible reading I held back then.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby promethean75 » Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:12 am

I dunno I feel like u guys aren't even listening to all the FZ songs I post for ya because you're still going, and going, and going....

I even loosed the Rosa on you and you were all like 'no I'm not dead meat!'

Do you need to be told you've been totally shut down and put out of business? I mean what do I gotta do, write a frickin thesis here? I stopped arguing with the religious decades ago. U can't expect me to go back. I ain't NEVER goin back, pal.
Last edited by promethean75 on Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5707
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:17 am

promethean75 wrote:I dunno I feel like u guys aren't even listening to all the FZ songs I post for ya because you're still going, and going, and going....

Do you need to be told you've been totally shut down and put out of business? I mean what do I gotta do, write a frickin thesis here? I stopped arguing with the religious decades ago. U can't expect me to go back. I ain't NEVER goin back, pal.

You do realize that most of humanity has attachments to certain ideas and beliefs, that they would die before disbelieving, right?

I feel like you walk backward sometimes, prom. You indicate progress, but then you take ten steps back.

The most dominant pro-religion argument is that the masses are sheep, and need to be led around by a Shepherd or be lost to wolves.


Religion is necessary, because stupidity is necessary.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby promethean75 » Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:32 am

With the exception of a few genetic conditions such as mental retardation and learning disabilities, human beings in general are quite able to survive and successfully navigate their environments provided they are part of a cooperative of other people tryna do the same. They've been doing this for like 60,000 years dude.

Now here's the kicker: if a system is purposely put into place that denies this collective, education and property, and is maintained generation after generation through political and economic manipulation, u end up with a semi-literate lower class of people who reproduce themselves.

These are the people u call 'sheep', see. And the irony is, it is people who think like you - the useless armchair aristocrats - WHO CREATED these sheep by systematically rigging the material and intellectual circumstances and conditions of society.

Like u really don't have clue what's going on here, do ya?
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5707
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:15 pm

Everybody has the internet.

There is no longer any excuse for illiteracy. If somebody wants to show everybody in the world their genius, it's only a few clicks away. But they don't, why not?
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:20 pm

I always get the impression you lead me on, prom. You know as well as I do, how useless and outright dangerous the common man can be.

Botched jobs, unreliable, lazy, arrogant contractors, how many boards with nails up have you walked over? Children need to be taught not to walk into the middle of the street. They're not born with it.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby felix dakat » Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:57 pm

promethean75 wrote:I dunno I feel like u guys aren't even listening to all the FZ songs I post for ya because you're still going, and going, and going....

I even loosed the Rosa on you and you were all like 'no I'm not dead meat!'

Do you need to be told you've been totally shut down and put out of business? I mean what do I gotta do, write a frickin thesis here? I stopped arguing with the religious decades ago. U can't expect me to go back. I ain't NEVER goin back, pal.


In the article I posted above the Catholic bishop predicted a smaller Catholic Church, that nevertheless presents a worldview and a way of life for people who want it. I find it perfectly understandable that you are not likely to be among them. But it's highly unlikely that they will stop thinking and living the way they do because you hold a different point of view. I hope the bishop is right. But he's looking at the world from his standpoint in the church hierarchy. If the problems of the Catholic Church stem from its hierarchy, then things won't get better without a radical change in the hierarchy. And that system is embedded in a worldview that is essentially hierarchical. So that thorny problem is at the crux of the church's situation.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10094
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Bob » Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:36 pm

felix dakat wrote:In the article I posted above the Catholic bishop predicted a smaller Catholic Church, that nevertheless presents a worldview and a way of life for people who want it. I find it perfectly understandable that you are not likely to be among them. But it's highly unlikely that they will stop thinking and living the way they do because you hold a different point of view. I hope the bishop is right. But he's looking at the world from his standpoint in the church hierarchy. If the problems of the Catholic Church stem from its hierarchy, then things won't get better without a radical change in the hierarchy. And that system is embedded in a worldview that is essentially hierarchical. So that thorny problem is at the crux of the church's situation.

I have spoken to people over time who have said that they would welcome a smaller church. Of course, a smaller church must finance itself and all it does somehow. That seems to be the real reason why there haven’t been as many breakaway Catholic communities, but instead they form circles that are outside of the church but still attend mass. These are usually led by women.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby felix dakat » Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:11 pm

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:In the article I posted above the Catholic bishop predicted a smaller Catholic Church, that nevertheless presents a worldview and a way of life for people who want it. I find it perfectly understandable that you are not likely to be among them. But it's highly unlikely that they will stop thinking and living the way they do because you hold a different point of view. I hope the bishop is right. But he's looking at the world from his standpoint in the church hierarchy. If the problems of the Catholic Church stem from its hierarchy, then things won't get better without a radical change in the hierarchy. And that system is embedded in a worldview that is essentially hierarchical. So that thorny problem is at the crux of the church's situation.

I have spoken to people over time who have said that they would welcome a smaller church. Of course, a smaller church must finance itself and all it does somehow. That seems to be the real reason why there haven’t been as many breakaway Catholic communities, but instead they form circles that are outside of the church but still attend mass. These are usually led by women.


The Catholic Church comes out of a culture dominated by a hierarchical worldview. In that context the hierarchical system of authority appeared to the leaders to be the best way to go. Of course the church hierarchy is under attack from without but more importantly from within.

Now it's more than a coincidence that hierarchy is under attack as a concept in other spheres. Take epistemology. Here's a proposition. Knowledge is higher than information and wisdom is higher than knowledge. So there is an epistemological hierarchy. Like this:

Wisdom
Knowledge
Information

From the bottom up knowledge depends on information and wisdom depends on knowledge. Knowledge depends on information, is communicable and meaningful, and reflects the reality of how the objective world really is.

But wisdom is higher than knowledge in so far as no amount of intelligent knowledge of how the world of objects really is will tell you how the world ought to be or what the value of anything is. And that's what wisdom is supposed to do.

In a hierarchy like this the higher is always dependent on the lower. The lower has priority in the sense of functionality. But the lower cannot account for the higher. And without the higher the lower is meaningless.

So for example take a so-called smart phone. It comes loaded with information. To know how to use the information to achieve an end requires knowledge. To know what that end ought to be requires wisdom. And there you have an epistemological hierarchy.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10094
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Does the Church have a future?

Postby Sculptor » Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:17 pm

What is Christianity for?

For the vast majority of people Xity has declined in their perview and interest makedly over the last 100 years. IN the early 20thC it was considered uncouth if you did not regularly attend church. There were even times long ago when it was compulsory and failure to attend was met with a fine or even imprisonment.
It would be a long post to try to unpack the history of Xity and church going in the West, but in short with the fragmentation following the Reformation and the sundering of the many cults of the Protestant the strangle hold over the lives of ordinary people was broken and belief and attendance became a matter of conscience not social and legal responsibility. THere also followed a fall in dogma, or at least a dispersal of dogma into a myriad of POVs. If you were able to escape the family bonds, or your local community, you had a choice which dogma to follow, but most significantly a choice to follow the dogma of none. Urbanisation had a massive effect on this. Land clearances, emigration, deruralisation all meant a fragmentation of the power of the church.

Atheism outweighs any belief in God in the UK. There is such vauge belief in a "spiritual power", but actual "God" is believed less than not.
https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html

Chruch attendance at an all time low is still dropping. Those that do attend, tend to restrict their attendance to birth, marriage and death with the odd appearance at a nice Xmas mass - for the Carols!!
Xity predict low with higher education and better standards of living. Attempts by Xity to be more relevant have made a few gains with the wailing Pentacostalists who seem to be gaining from the "trad" Prespetarians. With the Evangelicals making big gains in the US, but there is so much scandal and obvious fraud and quakery and downright immorality that this method is not likley to bring em back to the th "fold" in the UK.

How is Xity relavant? It just seems to be in its deathrows
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bob