The older I get, the more I see that people in general can't be moral-- atheist, Christian or whoever.

I think it is finally what those ministry leaders realized the other day when they announced the closing of their "fix-a-homosexual" program.

All you have to do, really, is read Paul's early letters to the church (1 Corinthians stands out) where he was dealing with blatant immorality in that particular church. Someone had slept with his father's wife, and was unrepentant, and boasting. Some were even getting drunk in the church.

But this view is sadly fostered by many Christians (and internet atheists who are always looking to play "gotcha") -- that Christians are supposed to be somehow morally superior. The good news of the gospel isn't that you will stop sinning once you become born again, but that your 'moral superiority' comes from the fact that sin ultimately won't be held against you if you come to God through communion with Christ.

How does one write a letter to a church? I'm often accused of being vague when I talk about religions as opposed to religious people, your answer might help define the distinction.

When Luther split from the Catholic church, was he the Protestant church personified? Did he take on deputies who also become 'the church' rather than simply followers? Does the buck actually stop at god? This has always bothered me.

I don't think it's fostered by 'many Christians', I think it's fostered by 'the church' (and by the temples and mosques). See question above for clarification.

Paul was writing to the churches of various cities. E.g. "C/O The Corinthian Church, 10 High Street, Corinth, Greece". I'm being a little simplistic here, but it was a lot more like that than what you are imagining.

He didn't - he was split from it.

For one, there's a difference between church as an administrative body and a church as a theological entity. As an "administrative body", the protestant church emerged within a few years after after ~1517-20; helped by the fact that germany at that time was split in many small princedoms which had the authority to handle religious matters more or less autonomously. It's impossible to point to a specific date and say "THis is when protestantism was officially founded", though there are a few very important dates obv. In addition, while Luther was the one purportedly nailing the theses on the church of WIttenberg (and, naturally, the one who got most attention from Rome following that), he's not the only important figure of early protestantism. Saying that he was the "one founder" would go against the very anti-glorification principle that Protestantism holds in high regard.

Ok, but isn't a religion, like a country or a currency, simply a shared idea? Was the Protestant church (or any other form of any religion) not born the very second that the first person conceived of the idea? How does one give the official (earthly) stamp of approval to a type of belief in god? Who is qualified to do that?

When writing to 'the church', are you not in essence writing to god but allowing someone who claims to speak for him to answer? (I'm not talking about asking for the date of the next church tea party, but something of a theological nature) So if I have theological questions, are the people who answer them not 'the church'? This is where I get confused by the practical difference between church as an administrative body and a church as a theological entity. Isn't the church actually the people who represent it, as opposed to simple members, regardless of whether they're acting in their administrative capacity or claiming to speak for their god?

On this issue, I am prepared to accept 'shut up and read up'. I'm also happy to pass the time of day discussing it with you.

If I'm reading that correctly there's no value in treating as legit.

I guess it begs the question of how do you treat a troll? The two most obvious choices are ignore or recognize they're a troll and have fun with it. Both have benefits.

btw- This could be stretching it but its crossed my mind that perhaps cwoc could be Splenda. I notice some similarities- the constant refusal to back up their opinions which are presented as facts. The references to religious people being driven away. The weird way their responses always kind of segueway to some tangentially related thought that doesn't really follow what they're responding to. And of course Splenda had a history of disappearing then coming back with a new name and trying to pretend she was someone new.

Of course it could just be another opinionated sloppy thinker.

@kurto


I can see you do not want to answer this and that you do not want a grown up discussion.

The fact that you don't understand the point of the list doesn't mean I need to grow up. Its really rude to insult others because you lack reading comprehension. I stated in the original post exactly why I listed those countries. You are the one asserting that Atheism leads to more sin. I provided you a list of the top 10 most atheistic countries. Surely if you're correct you'll be able to show that the top 10 countries are rife with illegitimate children, nudity, wine, women and song. Furthermore, I listed the top 10 most religious countries. By your logic those countries would have the least illegitimate children, nudity, wine, woman, song and gambling. They should be moral beacons for the world.

I did some quick research and we'll see what countries have the highest rate of births outside of marriage: SOURCE

Single highest countries with illegitimate children are all in Latin America... odd, they tend to be pretty religious.

Peru - top 10 most religious country - 2nd highest illegitimate birth rate of 69%?!?!

Let's look at the atheistic heavy countries listed-
China - <1%
Japan - <1%
S. Korea - <2%
France - 53%
Germany - 32%
UK - 45%

Some of the top atheistic countries have the lowest level of illegitimate chidlren in the world.

Nows your big chance to prove your point. You have the countries and now I've explained the significance... let's see you show your work. (Wink wink... like it could happen )

No that's your logic and it's simplistic nonsense. I have already pointed out to you that there is a strong correlation between crime and poverty and poverty and religious belief in the world. Your list has no validity at all given the many other factors which determine the level of atheism in some countries eg communism and other myriad cultural and historical factors. As I said try being a bit more grown up in your discussion.

The answre is "no" especially if you compare it to a country. When, do you think, was Germany born? 1871? First german Emperor? Karl the Great? There is no answer to this as for any of the important dates you can make a case that this date was a result of prior actions etc. It's also way too simple to put it "that the first person conceived of the idea". Some people start discussing change. Eventually there are demonstrations, then riots, then the first bystander gets killed by accident, eventually you have a civil war. When "was the first person conceiving that civil war"?

If you ask "How can I tell when a religion is founded and who's qualified to say so" there is a simple answer: Historians and whatever they end up agreeing on (which will usually be a complex form of "it depends").

No, why would you think so? If I want to "write to god", I'd pray.

Here, there's a difference in theological conception and administrative body. For catholics specifically, the magisterium is basically the opinion of "the church" (in the theological sense) on matters of doctrine. So if you ask them about matters of doctrine, you are asking "the church". However, that is specific to catholicism. Usually, when you ask some person (say, a dogmatics prof), he'll answer as a person, being part of a church. Usually, his answer will be well-grounded within the mainstream of his particular denomination (seeing that he needed to be appointed, his students need to accept him etc.), so that you can take his word as a good general rule of thumb of what his denomination believes. Yet, you're still asking a (very well informed) individual, not "the church".

In the theological sense, every member of the church is equal part of one big entity - in which everyone is of equal importance and status.

In a sense it's not too dissimilar how secular institutions work. If Putin talks to Merkel, she is, in a sense, Germany talking. However, if she's then asked which kind of bread she prefers, she's talking as A German. And similar, Putin can't really ask "Germany" which kind of bread it prefers (and asking Merkel here doesn't help).

Is Merkel Germany? And by the way: I think Catholicism is the only denomination (and maybe even religion) that claims that one individual talks with the full authority of God. And even in Catholicism this only applies for very specific assertions.

Ha. So, you state that atheism leads to more illegitimate children though you offer no evidence and hand wave any evidence to the contrary.

Grown ups can attempt to back up their assertions. Something you seem incapable of doing. Since you've been asked multiple times to back up your assertions and can only respond with the equivalent of "look around you"... and since you ignore any sort of statistical evidence.. I'll conclude that you are incapable of backing up your ridiculous posts.

Please stop asking others to be grown up when you offer nothing substative to discuss. It just makes us chuckle.

Actually, those statistics above seem to indicate that it is something besides atheism that is ultimately determinate.

Ducy?

Don't get me wrong... I don't think there's any merit to what he's saying whatsover. Though if what he was saying wasn't complete nonsense, then you would think he could find some empirical evidence. The fact that he can't verify what he's saying is really my point.

I do think its funny that the country with the highest incidence of illegitimate children is Columbia... a country that studies suggest is 95% Christian. Also a country known for human rights abuses, one of the largest distributors of Cocaine and internal wars. Yet so few atheists...

The country with the second highest incidence is Peru... one of the top ten countries for religious adherents.

The countries with the lowest incidence of illegitimate children are mostly the countries that have high populations of atheism. (the religous countries that are low are Islamic - no big point, just something to note)

Certainly most know that there are a myriad of factors that determine stats like this. But you'd think there might be SOME reflection between what he states and what you see in the most and least religious countries. Yet... at the extremes, its the complete opposite of what he suggests.

I don't think I agree on this one. I think Germany only exists because everyone agrees that it exists. There are plenty of countries that used to exist until someone had different ideas, invaded, subsumed, and eventually renamed them. In my lifetime I've seen several countries simply cease to exist and new ones spring into existence.

Currencies are the same and I really see no difference between them and religion. Many religions have also fallen by the wayside because people simply stopped agreeing to share the idea. It could, and probably will happen to Christianity if we survive long enough. I see religions as memes.

That's not really what I'm asking but tbh I've lost my train of thought on this one.

That crossed my mind. So when someone writes to a church regarding theological issues, they're expecting a reply from a human representative of that religions god. Are those people then not 'the church', as opposed to members of the church? When we talk about the church, are we not then referring to the people that run it, the authorities?


For me there's a huge distinction between a person who is knowledgeable about a religion, it's practices and beliefs, and a person who claims to know how their particular deity should be worshiped, or what it wants etc etc. Maybe theological is not the word I should be using.

I think what I'm driving at is that I think it's ok for an individual to speak directly to their god, but problems arise when they're speaking to someone who claims to represent a god. so the idea of 'writing to the church' seems very odd to me (except of course for matters of a no divine nature).

So you are saying being religious doesn't make you moral and not have a lot of illegitimate children, being rich does.

To take the last first:

It is also very odd to me. But here again, your lack of (historical) knowledge shows. You seem to hear "Church of Corinth" and imagine a full-blown church administration infrastructure. In the time of Paul however, there was no such thing. They didn't even have the gospels yet. There were single congregations of very limited size. I'm not entirely up to speed on whether someone actually tried to reconstruct it's size around 50ish post, but I'd bet the so-called "church" of Corinth consisted of 20-100 people. Probably closer to the lower than the upper bound. So if Paul writes to the "Church of Corinth" it is simply saying "He's writing to the corinthean congregation". Using the term "Church" here is little more than just assigning that congregation some extra dignity as it's one of the first. Cradle of christianity and all that.
Plus, again, you're glossing over the fact that very few - if any - church representatives ever claim to "represent" God.

Ok, now you need to come to the point of where you disagree with me. Nothing you wrote contradicts my first paragraph.

Nope, they don't expect a reply from a "representative" of their god. Who gave you that idea? They expect to get a reply from an expert. If you write to "the government" (whatever that is), you don't expect to get a reply from "a representative" of Cameron - you expect to get a reply from an expert in the field you're writing about. Naturally, you also expect that expert to be in line with party doctrine, but that doesn't mean that you expect to hear from a doppelganger of Cameron.
Depends on Context. For convenience, I'll assume that "we" to include you most of the time, so I'd assume when "you" talk about the church, you'll likely rarely refer to the spiritual community of all believers but rather to the institutional side of things. Which includes the authorities, but also universities, pastors/priests, ordinary persons volunteering in their parishes and so on. They all belong - to various degrees and on various levels of "administrative authority" to the institutional side of "the church".
From most of what you say, to you the church seems to be mostly "the managers" - that's too restrictive.

That wouldn't be the worst idea. You should also be more specific about which persons actually "claim to know how their deity should be worshiped". Naturally, you'll find countless people claiming to know all kinds of things, but once you actually get to the institutional church structures, relatively few fit that description.
On top of that, not everytime someone says in sunday sermon "God wants us to blabla" this is meant literally. Just as you get through political speeches by identifying the sections meant literal and those meant figuratively. You should approach theolgogical talk much the same way.

There is no merit to comparing one country to another or even people from the same country from different socio-economic groups. In order to prove your case you need to show that religious people from the same socio-economic group as similar atheists behave worse than the aforesaid atheists. It's pretty implausible isn't it ?

We're still waiting for you to show any evidence for any of your assertions. Please remember that "look around" isn't evidence since it appears the majority of the people responding to you have looked around and don't agree with most of anything you've written.

You're the one claiming atheists leads to illegitimate children. I know half a dozen atheists... all married with children. I've known two women who have illegitimate children... one was Catholic and the other is Jewish. So... looking around me I see that you're completely wrong.

Its getting boring asking you to back up your nonsense and see you fail to even try. I'll peek back occasionally but as I believe I said earlier... I'm going to assume you have nothing to offer and probably stop goading you in this thread about this since I'm taking your failure as a concession that you were just trolling in this whole thread.

Take care!

I was just pointing out what was obvious to me at first glance: that there are two distinct cultures represented in that list of 6 countries. The high percentages were represented in one, and the low percentages were in the other.

Furthermore, it is interesting that even Asian-Americans divorce at half the rate in comparison to the rest of Americans. Source. and another Source.

The UK is full of illegitimate children. It was pretty rare when people were more religious. Fact. I expect America is exactly the same. Now please stop being so childish.

Cite?

Do you doubt that illegitimacy rates have risen whilst religiosity has declined ?
It is not going to be possible to have a very grown up discussion with your attitude.

Meme this please.

His attitude? He's just asking you to prove what you're saying is actually correct since you normally spout garbage. This discussion bring bad is all on you.

Why is he asking ? Everyone is well aware of the trends. His attitude is just immature and tbh so is yours.