German Catholic church loses 520,000 members in 1 year

[older]

A story in The Guardian reports that the Church of Pedophilia (Catholic church) in Germany has lost 520,000 members in 2022, and 360,000 the year before that. The Protestant church lost 380,000 in 2022. Much of the loss is attributed to the abuse scandals.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/german-catholic-church-dying-painful-death-as-500000-leave-in-a-year?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Why am I not sad to hear that news??

[older]

There is also a drop in the U.S. Here's an article on that: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/22/us-churches-closing-religion-covid-christianity

 

And also, in Europe, they're turning empty churches into other things including hotels and nightclubs: 

https://apnews.com/article/churches-europe-religion-reuse-hotel-belgium-d137b114ea729fc514f704676b981237

[DOA]

Christianity's demise can mostly be attributed to christians.  They are their own worst enemy.  Christianity is so full of junk people today - especially junk pastors, that the only people they hate more than Atheist is one another.

 

[DOA]

On 6/29/2023 at 11:10 PM, Weezer said:

Why am I not sad to hear that news??

It's actually good news.  Lutherans are losing too.  Maybe Lutherans are seeing the light, Luther murdered as many (I think more) people than the diabolical john Calvin.  Calvinist...they'll never see the light!

[DOA]

On 6/30/2023 at 7:47 PM, older said:

There is also a drop in the U.S. Here's an article on that: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/22/us-churches-closing-religion-covid-christianity

 

And also, in Europe, they're turning empty churches into other things including hotels and nightclubs: 

https://apnews.com/article/churches-europe-religion-reuse-hotel-belgium-d137b114ea729fc514f704676b981237

Mosque too!  It's amazing how many churches are close their doors in America.  The numbers are amazing.  The weird thing about is - they don't freakn' care!

[RankStranger]

On 7/3/2023 at 9:52 PM, DOA said:

Mosque too!  It's amazing how many churches are close their doors in America.  The numbers are amazing.  The weird thing about is - they don't freakn' care!

 

A lot of churches and a lot of Christians have traded their respect and moral authority for hypocritical/judgmental beliefs, and nasty self-serving politics.  Most of them have no idea they've made this trade.

 

The thing about respect and moral authority is that these things can't be forced.  It's up to other people to decide whether they respect you or not.  It's up to other people to decide whether they see you or your religion as having any kind of moral authority. 

 

These people trying to force their religion onto others via the government, or supporting a narcissistic compulsive liar president in the name of Jesus... millions of them have lost some of the respect held for them by their own peers and their own family.  Most are totally unaware of that, or at least the reasons for it.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

4 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

These people trying to force their religion onto others via the government, or supporting a narcissistic compulsive liar president in the name of Jesus... millions of them have lost some of the respect held for them by their own peers and their own family.

 

Yep.  Looking at history, joining religion and government is a very dangerous undertking.

[RankStranger]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

Yep.  Looking at history, joining religion and government is a very dangerous undertking.

 

I like this post 

[older]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

Yep.  Looking at history, joining religion and government is a very dangerous undertking.

I like it, too, Rank. I've heard but not confirmed that in the UK hundreds of years ago roll was taken at church and you had better have been there. 

[DOA]

On 7/6/2023 at 12:11 PM, RankStranger said:

A lot of churches and a lot of Christians have .  Most of them have no idea they've made this trade.

I can understand the politics side of the issue. Churches are closing their doors and people are getting out mostly because of the people who are staying in!  

 

You said Christians "traded their respect and moral authority for hypocritical/judgmental beliefs, and nasty self-serving politics."

 

In a way I agree.  Trinity, Pre-trib, literal 6 day creationism, Amil, hell, are all nonsense.  Is that the 'TRADE' you're talking about?

[RankStranger]

17 minutes ago, DOA said:

I can understand the politics side of the issue. Churches are closing their doors and people are getting out mostly because of the people who are staying in!  

 

You said Christians "traded their respect and moral authority for hypocritical/judgmental beliefs, and nasty self-serving politics."

 

In a way I agree.  Trinity, Pre-trib, literal 6 day creationism, Amil, hell, are all nonsense.  Is that the 'TRADE' you're talking about?

 

Mainly what I had in mind with the hypocritical/judgmental beliefs this:  A lot of Christians seem to put their entire focus on forcing other people to adhere to indefensible beliefs.  Beliefs that may be held by faith, but can't be rationally justified in any way.  

 

They pressure people via family relationships, schools, the government... it's often successful in the sense that you can force children to believe most anything.  Even some adults.  Even adults who can't be forced to believe something can often be cowed into keeping their mouth shut.  But is that really faith?  Or is it fear and conformity?  

 

I think this sort of approach can be successful in the short term - keeping a lot of the children in the faith, making sure the church doesn't die.  But in the long run?  Pretty much every story on this site shows just how destructive this approach can be in the long run.  And it really does nothing good for the Christians trying to force their beliefs onto others... not in the long run.

 

 

[older]

12 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Mainly what I had in mind with the hypocritical/judgmental beliefs this:  A lot of Christians seem to put their entire focus on forcing other people to adhere to indefensible beliefs.  Beliefs that may be held by faith, but can't be rationally justified in any way.  

 

They pressure people via family relationships, schools, the government... it's often successful in the sense that you can force children to believe most anything.  Even some adults.  Even adults who can't be forced to believe something can often be cowed into keeping their mouth shut.  But is that really faith?  Or is it fear and conformity?  

 

I think this sort of approach can be successful in the short term - keeping a lot of the children in the faith, making sure the church doesn't die.  But in the long run?  Pretty much every story on this site shows just how destructive this approach can be in the long run.  And it really does nothing good for the Christians trying to force their beliefs onto others... not in the long run.

 

 

  

I can only give one like to this but it is a home run out of the park. Some of the "Christian principles" that happen to also be common to almost all other cultures and religions — love, peace, honesty and so on — are most worthy of working for. But Christianity is, as far as I know, the most aggressive in forcing its beliefs onto others. And that's one of my big beefs with it. A quote often but inaccurately attributed to Gandhi is “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Sometimes I wonder if Christianity is a synonym for hypocrisy. 

 

History is full of accounts of Christians sending their adherents into other cultures to tell them that the beliefs they hold are wrong and that their cultural behaviors are wrong, and then these missionaries have used violence to force those cultures to conform to the Christian mold. Read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, for example. Or Michener's Hawaii. Read about Custer and what he did before he got what he deserved. Read about what was happening in Europe from about 800 through the 18th century to people who dared question the religious power structure. Study how the cultures of the Americas were forcefully destroyed by self-righteous Europeans who brought the repressive behaviors and attitudes of their medieval culture with them when they invaded the western world. And follow the news of today — the cliche that history repeats itself is true.

[TABA]

9 hours ago, older said:

Christianity is, as far as I know, the most aggressive in forcing its beliefs onto others.

 

Except for Islam, perhaps.  The common denominator: monotheism.  Green and Roman polytheism allowed you an "a la carte" selection of gods.  You could revere/worship/placate as many as you liked, as long as you included the one(s) preferred by the state.  But monotheism allows no rivals to the One True God.  When you believe that there is one and only one God, that worship of any others is profoundly wrong, and when you believe that God has given instructions to humanity that must be followed, then indoctrination, persecution, burning of heretics and apostates all become not just acceptable but mandatory, at the risk of damnation.  The societies that become more tolerant, like the modern West and many mid-20th-century Islamic countries, are those that start to ignore some of the divine mandates.  They become better than their god.  Some, like most of the Islamic world since the 1970s, can still slide backwards into oppression. 

[RankStranger]

It's fashionable these days to consider everything about the U.S. and 'the West' as uniquely horrible and sinful.  I think that's sortof a vestigial Christian ethos retained even by secular Americans who often don't consider themselves Christian at all.  They still retain much of the culture of their grandparents, including concepts like Original Sin and Total Depravity... though they use different words these days.  IMO.

 

I think that's similar to the condemnations here painting Christianity as uniquely horrible.  I'll offer no disagreement at all that many horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity.  We're all aware of that.  But for every horror you can point to from Christians, you can find equal and greater horrors among Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, Romans, Syrians, Native Americans... just about any group of human apes you want to point to.  We can trade examples if we need to, but I'm sure you both know enough history to come up with your own.

 

It's my opinion that all humans are capable of all sorts of horrors.  Doesn't matter their religion or lack of one.  If their expressed reasons for brutality aren't Christian reasons... they'll simply be ascribed to whatever other religion or ideology said human happens to hold at that moment.  IMO humans are simply brutal under certain conditions.  Their stated reasons can be most anything.

[older]

Good morning Rank. 

I agree that all cultures have positive and negative attributes.

 

However it is also fashionable for those who defend against a criticism to mischaracterize that criticism as being more extensive than it is. For example, my comments do not “consider everything about the U.S. and the west as uniquely horrible and sinful,” nor do I claim that Christianity is “uniquely horrible.”

 

I criticize that which deserves criticism. The criticism is still valid without being required to include all the other things that deserve criticism, and not mentioning that which is worthy of praise does not mean that there are not praiseworthy elements therein. My criticism is for the things that deserve to be criticized and nothing more.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, TABA said:

Green and Roman polytheism

A bit o' the auld Irish coming out, there, eh?

[TABA]

3 hours ago, TABA said:

Green and Roman polytheism allowed you an "a la carte" selection of gods.

 

38 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

A bit o' the auld Irish coming out, there, eh?

I’m a bit partial to Brigid, the Celtic goddess of fertility and fire.  Lots of potential for fun and ideally debauched worship rituals there.  

 

https://www.pagangrimoire.com/brigid-goddess/

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, TABA said:

 

I’m a bit partial to Brigid, the Celtic goddess of fertility and fire.  Lots of potential for fun and ideally debauched worship rituals there.  

 

https://www.pagangrimoire.com/brigid-goddess/

 

 

I'm more of a Dagda man, myself.

[RankStranger]

2 hours ago, older said:

Good morning Rank. 

I agree that all cultures have positive and negative attributes.

 

However it is also fashionable for those who defend against a criticism to mischaracterize that criticism as being more extensive than it is. My comments do not “consider everything about the U.S. and the west as uniquely horrible and sinful,” nor do I claim that Christianity is “uniquely horrible.”

 

I criticize that which deserves criticism. The criticism is still valid without being required to include all the other things that deserve criticism, and not mentioning that which is worthy of praise does not mean that there are not praiseworthy elements therein. My criticism is for the things that deserve to be criticized and nothing more.

 

 

 

True.  I think we're both pointing out valid fashion trends.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say.  The main thing I was pushing back on is this, so I'll be more specific:

 

Quote

Christianity is, as far as I know, the most aggressive in forcing its beliefs onto others.

 

Christianity certainly is aggressive in forcing its beliefs onto others.  It's definitely among the most successful at spreading its beliefs (including but not limited to coercive methods).  But I think you'll concede that Islam is at least as aggressive in forcing its beliefs onto others.  I suspect that that's been true of thousands of religions over hundreds of thousands of years.  Not all of them for sure (not the Quakers ), but I suspect that any wide-spread religion that lasts a few centuries will almost by necessity be using coercive methods.  If you know of any exceptions, I'd be interested in examples.

 

That doesn't make coercive methods 'right'.  But I'm pretty sure they're so common as to be the norm among religious movements (and even cultish allegedly-secular political movements).  Might even be true of fashion trends, on some more subtly coercive level.

 

I don't know enough about Buddhists for instance to compare them directly to Christians.  But there are definitely coercive techniques used to spread Buddhism- some of which has been in the news lately.  Buddhism contains a variety of hells.  Buddhists have participated in masse... in pogroms, genocides, wars, and all sorts of mass slaughter (no different than the rest of us human apes as far as I can tell). 

 

So I'm not convinced that any of Christianity's problems (including aggressiveness) are unique to Christianity.  I think Christianity's problems are mostly the norm for human apes acting the way human apes act.

 

 

Edit:  I read Howard Zinn's book many years ago.  I still remember the gist of it, and I don't particularly disagree with him on a factual level.  But it's worth keeping in mind that he's only telling his side of the story.  It's only one narrative of our history, among thousands.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I don't disagree with any of the particulars cited here.  But I do feel that arguments framed around the idea that "X is bad, but so are the rest of the letters in the alphabet" are essentially flawed.  Firstly, because one is readily admitting that one's position (X) is not defensible.  Secondly because comparing an admittedly indefensible position to a series of other, equally indefensible positions does little more than reduce the playing field to a collage of bad options.  It certainly does not strengthen one's position, nor make it any more enticing or convincing for the disinterested third party.

[RankStranger]

48 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I don't disagree with any of the particulars cited here.  But I do feel that arguments framed around the idea that "X is bad, but so are the rest of the letters in the alphabet" are essentially flawed. 

 

Flawed because:

 

 

Quote

Firstly, because one is readily admitting that one's position (X) is not defensible. 

 

How is my position not defensible?  My position is that Christianity is in fact very aggressive in spreading its views onto others, and that this is in no way unique to Christianity.  If that's not 'defensible', feel free to prove me wrong.  Or prove me immoral.  Not sure exactly what you mean here by 'indefensible'.

 

 

Quote

Secondly because comparing an admittedly indefensible position to a series of other, equally indefensible positions does little more than reduce the playing field to a collage of bad options.  It certainly does not strengthen one's position, nor make it any more enticing or convincing for the disinterested third party.

 

Sorry it's not enticing or convincing.  But is my position, as stated above, incorrect?  Or is this a moral argument?

 

Maybe we need find out exactly what you mean by 'indefensible'.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

55 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

Flawed because:

 

 

 

How is my position not defensible?  My position is that Christianity is in fact very aggressive in spreading its views onto others, and that this is in no way unique to Christianity.  If that's not 'defensible', feel free to prove me wrong.  Or prove me immoral.  Not sure exactly what you mean here by 'indefensible'.

 

 

 

Sorry it's not enticing or convincing.  But is my position, as stated above, incorrect?  Or is this a moral argument?

 

Maybe we need find out exactly what you mean by 'indefensible'.

 

Did I say that your position specifically was indefensible? 

 

No.  I did not. 

 

In fact, I prefaced my post by explicitly stating that I do not disagree with any of the particulars cited (implicitly, this means yours included). 

 

My remarks had absolutely nothing to do with the position you have taken, only in the way the position was framed.

[RankStranger]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Did I say that your position specifically was indefensible? 

 

No.  I did not. 

 

In fact, I prefaced my post by explicitly stating that I do not disagree with any of the particulars cited (implicitly, this means yours included). 

 

My remarks had absolutely nothing to do with the position you have taken, only in the way the position was framed.

 

Oh sorry.  I guess you were referring to some other argument made by some other person in some other thread when you said:

 

 

Quote

I do feel that arguments framed around the idea that "X is bad, but so are the rest of the letters in the alphabet" are essentially flawed. 

 

God Bless and carry on.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

Oh sorry.  I guess you were referring to some other argument made by some other person in some other thread when you said:

 

 

 

God Bless and carry on.

No, sir.  I was definitely referring to the way you framed your argument.  I mistakenly assumed you would realize that I was not critquing the argument itself, merely the form in which you presented it.   In future I will try to make my remarks more clear.

 

For clarity here, let me just add: I agree that christianity is a horrible religion; but comparing it to other, equally horrible religions does nothing to strengthen your overall position of accepting the christian religion, nor does it encourage others to do so.