In Norway the Majority No Longer Believes
When I discuss here the falling numbers of believers a comment will often appear, "People will revert to how it used to be when they grow older and come to their senses. That has always happened in the past."
When we talk about the "past" it is always possible to pick the past one likes most and ignore parts not liked. Most believers alive today probably had great grandparents, grandparents and parents who were believers. When they talk about the past that is the time period they are referring to. Most of the "past" however was long before that, like 200,000 years before. Thus, it would be accurate to say this period of majority not believing in Norway is itself a return to some period in the past. Certainly other gods were worshiped for most of human history.
There was a news item this past week reporting that Southern Baptists experienced the largest membership drop in history in 2019. This is on top of a 10% drop annually for the last decade or two.
The number of believers remains huge in the U.S. and we can't predict the future, to me it seems like Christianity is experiencing the same thing that happened to Paganism 2,000 years ago. Back then, it was unthinkable this upstart religion full of impossible claims could push aside a faith that had dominated for many generations. But change came anyway. Now it may change again.
As long as they have North Sea Oil and Gas, they need no God.
ReplyDeleteHelper--"....they have North Sea Oil....they need no God."
ReplyDeleteThen there are the falling church numbers in England, France and Catholic Italy, etc.
Jon, Jun 6, 2020 at 4:58 PM
DeleteBut there is hope for theism. A conversion using an ancient sacramental host from dear Mother Earth for a holy communion like no other. Don’t know if it will do much for Christianity, church attendance, and the plate but:
“A recent survey, for instance, found that more than half of all prior atheists reported no longer being atheist after having an entity encounter experience with the potent endogenous chemical DMT," “Furthermore, the experiences were rated as among the most meaningful, spiritual, and psychologically insightful lifetime experiences, with persisting positive changes in life satisfaction, purpose and meaning attributed to them."
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-exploring-nature-anomalous-psychedelic.html
“The kingdom of God is within you”, Luke 17:21, KJV. Still wondering what the good rabbi did for fun in his formative years and later wondering around a desert for forty days.
My goodness man; Haven't you read the Infancy Gospels of Jesus Christ? Making birds from clay, and teaching them to fly. Playing with friends and killing them to raise them up again? I too am wondering about his wandering, but that would be speculation.
Deletelittle helper Jun 6, 2020 at 6:25 PM
Delete“I too am wondering about his wandering, but that would be speculation.“
Perhaps sitting down wind from some frankincense, hashish, and cow dung in a small campfire on forty cold wilderness nights during long soliloquies about temptation and sin yielded a few revelations. But I’m only speculating.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/holy-of-holies-cannabis
hyper-boil
Deletelittle helper June 7, 2020 @ 9:04 AM
Delete“hyper-boil”
The day will come when the origin of all gods and all religious experience will be recognized and confirmed to be a consequence of the secretion of endogenous chemicals in the human brain — just another neuro-chemical romance. Still, I’m sure you won’t be out of work. There’ll always be a need for consolation.
Oh yes, the big boil. Don’t squeeze it!
https://www.doomandbloom.net/how-to-lance-a-boil/
Well, it's your 6;48 boil. Hyper away.
DeleteThey have the Queen, fine wine, and the finest handmade accordions. What more does one need.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAmen, I say to you it matters not how many believe or disbelieve. God is not entered into a popularity contest seeking the approval of the masses. God is calling us to the cross of His only begotten son, Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteToday's Gospel reading sums it up clearly. Jon, you might want to pay attention to verse 18.
Gospel, John 3:16-18
16 For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
17 For God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but so that through him the world might be saved.
18 No one who believes in him will be judged; but whoever does not believe is judged already, because that person does not believe in the Name of God's only Son.
Matt-- "..but whoever does not believe is judged already, because that person does not believe in the Name of God's only Son."
ReplyDeleteAh yes, from the Book of John. That was written 100 years after the alleged time of Jesus. It was written by unknown writers, part of the wealthy 1% who were the only literate people of that time, for one purpose, to control those who were illiterate and not wealthy. It was all about class.
But today it provided pleasure for folks such as yourself because you can look down at those inferior to you, those who question authority and the belief in your particular god. The majority in the world worship no god or some other god. I don't want to deprive you of that pleasure to bring up John 3:18 whenever you need a mental lift.
Proof! You have no proof when it was written despite you saying it happened 100 years after the time of Jesus Christ. For all we know, it was written at the time of Jesus Christ. The authorship is most probably John, himself, but it could be someone else who was eyewitness to the life and works of Jesus Christ. In other words, there is a high probability it was written by someone who was literate but hardly among the wealthy. The writer was the follower of a man who was crucified; hardly the wealthy person you claim with no proof.
DeleteYou also have no proof of the reason to write; namely to control those who were illiterate and not wealthy. Those that followed Christ grew daily. Those that spread the Gospel, the 11 apostles, were hunted down and martyred for their Faith. Only John was not put to death but lived out his life on Patmos.
Today's reading was chosen by the Catholic Church to remind us of the reason Christ lived, died and rose from the dead. He came to redeem mankind so that those who believe and live a life as required would have everlasting life with Him. To those who don't believe, the everlasting result is absence from God. You can take that up with God, not me.
All of the Gospels are uplifting. If you were God and wanted to communicate the options of everlasting life, what would you do or say? Would you omit the part of everlasting damnation so as to not offend anyone? Or would you tell the truth?
Jon, it is worth noting that you focused only on a part of the 1 sentence in verse 18. Why not focus on verse 16, "For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." You also chose to ignore verse 18, "For God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but so that through him the world might be saved."
DeleteThere you go. You skip the positive, the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ, the love of God towards His creation, the fact that Christ came to the world to save the world, not judge the world. Even verse 18 starts with the phrase, "No one who believes in him will be judged."
Tell me, why do you not focus on the positive? Will you turn my question into a negative?
Matt 2:22 "You have no proof when it was written..."
DeleteI refer you to your own Catholic faith. It notes in the Catholic Encyclopedia past tense references in John to events confirmed in other sources. I've not heard of a contemporary scholar who argues the Gospel of John was written before the year 100. In the Catholic Encyclopedia there is a funny reference to the author St. John being very old when he wrote the Gospel. This was to justify obviously bogus claims of eye witness to Jesus.
The Encyclopedia notes the majority, nearly all so far as I can tell, of scholars outside of Catholicism disagree with it as to the authorship and legitimacy of the Gospel of John. You would do yourself a favor by taking on a little skepticism yourself.
There are other Catholic references which point to John as the most likely author. But it could have been other eyewitnesses to the life of Christ. Either way, John the Apostle was the principal source of information for the Gospel.
DeleteI am, however, happy to hear you are reading the Catholic encyclopedia.
Pope Benedict XVI is the most recent Catholic scholar who makes the case for St. John as the author. Is he contemporary, Catholic and scholarly for your litmus test?
DeleteYou can read excerpts of the book, "Jesus of Nazareth" by Pope Benedict XVI.
DeleteMatt 3:21 "No one who believes in him will be judged."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you doing, parody, stand up comedy? That is a threat, not a positive statement.
I don't feel threatened. I feel encouraged. Why do you think you feel threatened?
DeleteI gave old Jon a probable explanation of John's Gospel. but he (Jon) chose not to post it. maybe he feels threatened.
DeleteMatt "I don't feel threatened. I feel encouraged. Why do you think you feel threatened?"
DeleteAs I understand it, priests in the Catholic faith are giving the responsibility of explaining scripture to lay people. In much of Protestantism lay people are expected to study scripture themselves. In your case, I think you should go back to your childhood practice of letting priests tell you what scripture means.
Dear Jon, you don't understand "it", and that covers a good deal of Catholic theology, scripture, etc. The scriptures have been published for the Faithful for many centuries. Lay and religious theologians have been expounding on it for a long time. Priests, by a wide margin, have had years of seminary where they learn scriptures among other things. It is fair to say they have more understanding of the Bible than 95% of the laity, perhaps 99%. So, your short sentence on how scripture is explained is only half true. Your next sentence about Protestants is laughable since everyone, including you, are both encouraged to study scripture and ask questions when they have difficulties. Scripture is a lot like ordinary differential equations or nanoscience, the answers are there but it takes some digging and some help to figure it all out.
DeleteAgain, do you think you are threatened by Scripture which paints a clear picture for you?
Unknown: The fact that Jon reserves the privilege of moderating posts means 2 things: (1) he will never grow a following, and (2) it satisfies his need to feel relevant and "in control". Jon does not control me as I never let it really bother me when he fails to publish my posts. I'm not posting to please Jon or try to word things so he posts it. That's why I leave for significant amounts of time, only to return for a week or so.
Deletemy issue is this: writing a lengthy post is time consuming. I don't want to throw something together. so when my posts are not published, I feel that I have wasted time that could have been better spent. so if I post at all, I try to keep in short and sweet as they say.
DeleteUnknown "but he, (Jon) chose not to post it. maybe he feels threatened."
ReplyDeleteYou wrote what you often write, something like "my opinion on this is ......" I don't happen to like those kind of posts. If you had written, or implied as Matt does, "My training since childhood in the Catholic Church leads me to conclude..." probably I would have posted it.
I'd suggest putting some context around your posts instead of just your off-the-cuff opinion on whether you like my blog or dislike it. You used to post often something like, "Philosophy would disprove your argument." But then you would not explain why that was so, so I quit putting them up. That will continue.
guess I'm not dogmatic enough for you. be that as it may, I think that I gave a cogent explanation of the John's gospel story. I did hedge a bit because I made some assertions that make sense but could, nevertheless, have been untrue (i.e. the assumption that St John was a teenager at the time of the Passion).
Delete