Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[ProfessorDavey]

   

Speking as siomeone  who not only grew up in the BB, but was a BB officer for twenty four years, to say that the ethos was Christian is stretching it a bit.
Yes, we tried to convey the Object..."The Advancement of Christ's Kingdom among Boys.....etc", but if you think there was some form of holy osmosis goin g on, forget it.
Indoctrination was simply not on the agenda; I taught the faith side in the Company for twenty years, and you can guarantee that!
If I left a Boy asking questions, then that's fine with me.
My purpose was to pen minds, not close them.

For crying out loud AM, the BB are a well known christian youth organisation, with a christian founding mission and christian ethos that they have retained (unlike a number of other youth organisations that have moved away from a specifically christian founding ethos).

That the BB required you to attend christian religious instruction via Sunday School might have given you a bit of a clue that they are a christian organisation.

You say you 'taught the faith side' in the BB - that might have given you another clue - only religious organisations (in this case a christian one) have a ' faith side' to their organisations.

That you might not have rammed christianity down the throats of your young charges, and that some of those young people might have been disinterested in the message doesn't change the fact that the BB is a christian organisation with a christian mission.

[torridon]

Not voices, a sense of presence, a sense of distance, thoughts, phrases which come to mind, new insights and understandings, new illumination of a formerly closed off biblical passages, a hunger for the bible, a sense of mental and spiritual integration in Christian fellowship and after sacraments. That sort of thing.

If you'd been born in Karachi you wouldn't have a hunger for the Bible, you probably would not even tolerate having one in the house. If you'd been born in Madras, it probably would be Krishna, or Ganesh you'd be yearning for, not Christ.  A Roman centurion ? probably Mithras.  Evidence is, that these things are artefacts of mind embedded in our psyche through cultural conditioning.

[Anchorman]

If you'd been born in Karachi you wouldn't have a hunger for the Bible, you probably would not even tolerate having one in the house. If you'd been born in Madras, it probably would be Krishna, or Ganesh you'd be yearning for, not Christ.  A Roman centurion ? probably Mithras.  Evidence is, that these things are artefacts of mind embedded in our psyche through cultural conditioning.

   


Karachi?
Yep....despite persecution, we are growing there, as in India.
Indeed, the church in India has sent missionaries here.
we have a local worker, a convert from Hinduism, from a family with Hinduism in their blood - his grandfather being a Brahmin priest.....
Sweeping statement there......

[torridon]

   
Karachi?
Yep....despite persecution, we are growing there, as in India.
Indeed, the church in India has sent missionaries here.
we have a local worker, a convert from Hinduism, from a family with Hinduism in their blood - his grandfather being a Brahmin priest.....
Sweeping statement there......

Data from Pew Research suggests that conversions between faiths are but a minor contributor to overall landscape of religious demographics across all faiths.  This is true of Islam, the numbers of people converting from Islam to other faiths is roughly equal to the number of people converting into it.

[Sriram]

   


Karachi?
Yep....despite persecution, we are growing there, as in India.
Indeed, the church in India has sent missionaries here.
we have a local worker, a convert from Hinduism, from a family with Hinduism in their blood - his grandfather being a Brahmin priest.....
Sweeping statement there......

I agree that religions are a valid and powerful path towards spiritual growth.

However, just as every regional cuisine is different, but has basically the same ingredients everywhere and is processed within people in the same way......similarly, religions are different and have strong regional flavours...but they are nevertheless basically not different from other major religions.  They all are paths to the same goal.

One can be very faithful to ones religion and ones deity....but to consider other religions as invalid is wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

Data from Pew Research suggests that conversions between faiths are but a minor contributor to overall landscape of religious demographics across all faiths.  This is true of Islam, the numbers of people converting from Islam to other faiths is roughly equal to the number of people converting into it.

The numbers of conversions from to a different religion to the one they were brought up is in tiny. I posted some info on this a while ago.

So in the UK less than 0.4% of active christians were brought up in a different religion - and the same is true, in reverse for other religions. In fact just one in a thousand active anglicans was brought up in a non-christian religion. Yes you read that right, one in a thousand. Put it another way, given that the average congregation size for CofE is less than 30, this Sunday morning you'd have to attend 33 separate church services to be likely to find a single person attending who was brought up in a non christian religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you'd been born in Karachi you wouldn't have a hunger for the Bible, you probably would not even tolerate having one in the house. If you'd been born in Madras, it probably would be Krishna, or Ganesh you'd be yearning for, not Christ.  A Roman centurion ? probably Mithras.  Evidence is, that these things are artefacts of mind embedded in our psyche through cultural conditioning.

If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire you wouldn't have a hunger for the bible. What I am saying is my hunger for the bible was not cultural so for me there is but one source of that transformation. Prior to a period of Enlightenment of the bible I considered church going a campy cultural pretence but suddenly experienced the fellowship qualities.

Since the UK has been secular and technological for decades my religious beliefs are not cultural but from God and most of your secular beliefs are cultural.

[Stranger]

If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire you wouldn't have a hunger for the bible. What I am saying is my hunger for the bible was not cultural so for me there is but one source of that transformation. Prior to a period of Enlightenment of the bible I considered church going a campy cultural pretence but suddenly experienced the fellowship qualities.

Since the UK has been secular and technological for decades that my religious beliefs are not cultural but from God and most of your secular beliefs are cultural.

Comical. The UK may well be increasingly secular, but that doesn't mean that the dominant religion isn't Christian, and that most of an average person's exposure to 'god' and religion would be via Christianity. Even if you considered it "campy cultural pretence", that means you were familiar with it, and that's the point. If you'd have been raised in a Muslim country, how do you know you wouldn't have had a "hunger for the Qur'an"? The stats the prof quoted suggest that would be more likely.

As for your claim "my religious beliefs are not cultural but from God", how about at least making an attempt to give a rational basis for why anybody should take it seriously. Go on, there's a first time for everything!

[ProfessorDavey]

If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire you wouldn't have a hunger for the bible. What I am saying is my hunger for the bible was not cultural so for me there is but one source of that transformation. Prior to a period of Enlightenment of the bible I considered church going a campy cultural pretence but suddenly experienced the fellowship qualities.

Of course it is cultural - the reason why you and AM ended up as christians rather than muslim, jewish, hindu etc is because you were brought up within a christian tradition and culture.

As I have shown a tiny, tiny proportion (so small to be insignificant) of people who are current christians were brought up within a different faith tradition. People simply do not convert from one religion to another to any significant degree and the reason why is that unless you are brought up in a particular faith tradition that faith simply seems odd, alien, and, frankly, unbelievable. Had you been brought up within a muslim culture and tradition, say in Karachi, your hunger would have been almost certainly been for islam and the koran.

Religions realise this, which is why they spend so much effort ensuring that children are brought up in their faith - they know that unless they do this the likelihood that they will come to that faith as adults is close to zero.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Comical. The UK may well be increasingly secular, but that doesn't mean that the dominant religion isn't Christian, and that most of an average person's exposure to 'god' and religion would be via Christianity. Even if you considered it "campy cultural pretence", that means you were familiar with it, and that's the point. If you'd have been raised in a Muslim country, how do you know you wouldn't have had a "hunger for the Qur'an"? The stats the prof quoted suggest that would be more likely.

As for your claim "my religious beliefs are not cultural but from God", how about at least making an attempt to give a rational basis for why anybody should take it seriously. Go on, there's a first time for everything!

Saying that the dominant religion is Christianity is like saying the dominant pop group is whatever the dominant pop group is. Religion is and has been for decades a minority interest to the point where there is little interest for what it says about itself. This is why it is now viewed in cultural terms which along with statistics is the chief lens through which
Secularism presently views the world.

This makes secularism itself and individuals more cultural and exposed to passing fads and charismatic individuals.

In terms of rationality. I believe a moral realism is more rational than an alternative system where moral Stances are made up.

That it is more reasonable to stick with cause and effect with prime actualizer than insisting on cause and effect until it doesn't suit.

These are all reasonable. The universe just is....and that is it......is definitionally unreasonable for we are eschewing a reason.

I Was never as familiar with Christianity as I am now. Adherence to cultural secularism prevents saving familiarity and contemporary atheism revels in it's ignorance of it.

[Stranger]

Saying that the dominant religion is Christianity is like saying the dominant pop group is whatever the dominant pop group is.

Drivel. The point I've made was about familiar concepts of 'god'.

Religion is and has been for decades a minority interest to the point where there is little interest for what it says about itself. This is why it is now viewed in cultural terms which along with statistics is the chief lens through which
Secularism presently views the world.

This makes secularism itself and individuals more cultural and exposed to passing fads and charismatic individuals.

Irrelevant wittering (and you still don't seem to understand secularism).

In terms of rationality. I believe a moral realism is more rational than an alternative system where moral Stances are made up.

You may find it easier but where is the rational argument that that is the way things are, rather than how you'd like them to be? Who's suggesting that they are just 'made up'.

That it is more reasonable to stick with cause and effect...

Why? We have reasons aplenty to think it doesn't universally apply even within space-time, let alone trying to apply it the space-time itself (where it's actually difficulty to even make it make any sense).

...with prime actualizer...

Why only one and what's the connection to any god?

...than insisting on cause and effect until it doesn't suit.

Which is exactly what postulating a "prime actualizer" would be doing. 

These are all reasonable.

Then show your reasoning.

The universe just is....and that is it......is definitionally unreasonable for we are eschewing a reason.

Trying to shift the burden of proof. We don't need to know how or why the universe exists to dismiss your unfounded claims.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. The point I've made was about familiar concepts of 'god'.

Irrelevant wittering (and you still don't seem to understand secularism).

You may find it easier but where is the rational argument that that is the way things are, rather than how you'd like them to be? Who's suggesting that they are just 'made up'.

Why? We have reasons aplenty to think it doesn't universally apply even within space-time, let alone trying to apply it the space-time itself (where it's actually difficulty to even make it make any sense).

Why only one and what's the connection to any god?

Which is exactly what postulating a "prime actualizer" would be doing. 

Then show your reasoning.

Trying to shift the burden of proof. We don't need to know how or why the universe exists to dismiss your unfounded claims.

The argument from contingency embodies the principle of sufficient reason.

The universe just is and there's the end to it(Bertrand Russell)does not.

[Stranger]

The argument from contingency...

Is still missing.

I posted the original last time and pointed out its absurdities. You have yet to either post or reference a version you consider sound and are willing to defend. Until and unless you do, mentioning it is utterly pointless and totally meaningless.

...embodies the principle of sufficient reason.

The universe just is and there's the end to it(Bertrand Russell)does not.

So what?

We can't even verify that your missing argument does embody the principle of sufficient reason. And you're still trying to shift the burden of proof. Nobody needs to think that the universe 'just is' to dismiss unjustified claims of god.

[ProfessorDavey]

Saying that the dominant religion is Christianity is like saying the dominant pop group is whatever the dominant pop group is. Religion is and has been for decades a minority interest to the point where there is little interest for what it says about itself. This is why it is now viewed in cultural terms which along with statistics is the chief lens through which
Secularism presently views the world.

It is a bit more complicated that that. The issue isn't really what religion is the dominant one in a country, although that will add to the general 'mood music' within a country. No, the issue is the culture that an individual is brought up in, which may, or may not, align with the dominant religion.

So in effect virtually no-one not brought up within a particular religious culture becomes an adherent of that religion as an adult. So in the UK active adult christians were, except in very, very rare instances, brought up as christians. Active adult muslims were, except in very, very rare instances, brought up as muslims. Active adult jews were, except in very, very rare instances, brought up as jews etc, etc. So bringing up a child in a particular religious culture is pretty well essential for there to be a possibility that that person will be an adherent of that religion as an adult.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a bit more complicated that that. The issue isn't really what religion is the dominant one in a country, although that will add to the general 'mood music' within a country. No, the issue is the culture that an individual is brought up in, which may, or may not, align with the dominant religion.

So in effect virtually no-one not brought up within a particular religious culture becomes an adherent of that religion as an adult. So in the UK active adult christians were, except in very, very rare instances, brought up as christians. Active adult muslims were, except in very, very rare instances, brought up as muslims. Active adult jews were, except in very, very rare instances, brought up as jews etc, etc. So bringing up a child in a particular religious culture is pretty well essential for there to be a possibility that that person will be an adherent of that religion as an adult.

I thought we had discussed the problems with the term Active this or that. I am sure that what a christian terms as active is different to what a moslem terms as active. Of course I would imagine that you expect both to accept your one size fits all definition. Cultural christinaity produces largely cultural christians and cultural christianity in the UK does not deal in personal relationship in the sense that an active Christ encountered and committed christianity and indeed that is a closed book to many who think they are christian because this is a Christian country. It isn't, it's secular. That is the prominent Weltbilt and that's why you'll find your views are culturally decided.

Do I care that I am only one of the few converts from a non religious background? It's an existential issue and I believe everyone gets the chance to turn to or turn against Christ.

One must also add that chinese christianity seems to have increased almost tenfold and I think South Korean Christianity has grown a lot also in the same time period that church going has fallen so yourworking out doesn't seem to be universal.




 

[ProfessorDavey]

Do I care that I am only one of the few converts from a non religious background?

Really - I'm sure we've discussed this before and it was pretty clear that your upbringing was christian (albeit something you briefly rejected in you teens).

So from another thread you stated:

'I was confirmed into the Church of England and simultaneously received into membership of the Methodist church'

Perhaps you'd like to tell us at what age you were confirmed into the Church of England and simultaneously received into membership of the Methodist church. To sustain any credible claim to have been brought up in a non religious manner this could have been during your childhood upbringing, because guess what people bringing their children up in a non religious manner do not have their children confirmed into the Church of England etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - I'm sure we've discussed this before and it was pretty clear that your upbringing was christian (albeit something you briefly rejected in you teens).

Cultural christianity of a far lesser kind than say, Dawkins, Perhaps. Anything like what my adult experience of Christianity, I think I would have noticed.

I wasn't aware that I rejected anything I had in my teens. I had never believed in the Jesus I later encountered.

So from another thread you stated:

'I was confirmed into the Church of England and simultaneously received into membership of the Methodist church'

Yes....at the age of 24.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes....at the age of 24.

Thank you.

So just to confirm that your upbringing was non religious, perhaps you'd let us know the following:

1. Were you baptised
2. Did you attend religious services as a child, regularly or occasionally
3. Did you ever attend Sunday School
4. Did you start to take communion before the age of, let's say, 16.
5. Did you attend a faith school or a non faith school

Some of these might be indicators of mere cultural christianity and a non religious upbringing even if the answer is yes. Others definitely indicate a religious upbringing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you.

So just to confirm that your upbringing was non religious, perhaps you'd let us know the following:

1. Were you baptised
2. Did you attend religious services as a child, regularly or occasionally
3. Did you ever attend Sunday School
4. Did you start to take communion before the age of, let's say, 16.
5. Did you attend a faith school or a non faith school

Some of these might be indicators of mere cultural christianity and a non religious upbringing even if the answer is yes. Others definitely indicate a religious upbringing.

All we are going to get here Prof is what you consider a religious upbringing.

1: I think I was baptised I have no recollection of it.
2: I think I occasionally attended a religious service
3: I attended sunday school.
4: I don't think I was aware of communion and certainly never had it prior to the age of 24
5 Yes and yes.

My parents did not attend church and one parent ridiculed what they called Holy Willies, when I first a christian I started a Grace over christmas dinner with ''Father we thank you for these gifts'' at which point my dad said ''You're welcome''. We had an uncle who was religious, any religious material left by him was secreted by my parents. I don't call that a religious upbringing......Where do you think the religion seeped in?

[ProfessorDavey]

Where do you think the religion seeped in

Err - in the faith school and in Sunday School - and also in your parents choices - specifically to send you to a faith school and to Sunday school. Guess what parents bringing their children up in a non religious tend not to sent their children to faith schools and certainly don't send their children to Sunday school.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Err - in the faith school and in Sunday School - and also in your parents choices - specifically to send you to a faith school and to Sunday school. Guess what parents bringing their children up in a non religious tend not to sent their children to faith schools and certainly don't send their children to Sunday school.

It was the local school. The school run didn't exist so there wasn't really an alternative for my parents, The culture was secular. We did do nativities so I suppose you are going to call 'manger danger' I believe the swivel eyed atheists call it.

Going back to rejecting christianity with me  saying I had never accepted proper Christianity until my twenties........are you proposing that people who reject there childhood faith don't properly reject it?

Do you think you've ever rejected your childhood weltbild?

[ProfessorDavey]

It was the local school. The school run didn't exist so there wasn't really an alternative for my parents,

Really?

I guess this was a primary school, given your comment about nativities, which aren't really a thing in secondary schools. Where was this Vlad? The reason I ask is that there are some small villages with just one school, and it is CofE. But this is pretty rare. Most large villages and certainly all towns and cities will have several primary schools and because each is fairly small there tends not to be much distance between them. So for most people there are several 'local schools' within easy walking distance (no need for the school run) and at least one will be non faith. So while it is possible this was the only school if you lived in a small village, pretty well anywhere else this was one of a number of schools your parents could have sent you to but they chose this one.

The culture was secular. We did do nativities so I suppose you are going to call 'manger danger' I believe the swivel eyed atheists call it.

Really - no assemblies with hymn singing and 'close your eyes, put your hands together and pray to Jesus'-type stuff. Given that this was required by law (and still is) and in the 60s, 70s etc was largely complied with even in non faith schools, the notion that your faith school (CofE I presume) wasn't doing this is barely believable. No little picture book bible stories - again commonplace even in non faith schools.

[ProfessorDavey]

It was the local school.

Note the selective response.

What about the Sunday School attendance? While attending school was required, attending Sunday School is entirely a choice made by parents for their children. If your upbringing was non religious why on earth were you sent to elective classes aimed at christian religious instruction. And don't tell me that you went because 'everyone did back then' because we know that to be a lie as less than a quarter of kids did back then, the ones being brought up christian. The notion that your parents would choose to send their child to Sunday school as a feature of a non religious upbringing beggars belief.

[ekim]

Going back to rejecting christianity with me  saying I had never accepted proper Christianity until my twenties........are you proposing that people who reject there childhood faith don't properly reject it?

What you seem to be suggesting is that you were not conditioned as a child to believe in Christianity.  I believe you had a 'spiritual' experience later in life which you seem to have interpreted as a Christian one rather than, say, a Zen experience.  Perhaps you could say what prompted the Christian interpretation as opposed to that of any other religion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Perhaps you could say what prompted the Christian interpretation as opposed to that of any other religion.

Probably the formative experiences of his upbringing. Specifically being immersed in christianity within the christian faith school he attended and Sunday school he attended. Plus his 'occasional' attendance at church services during his upbringing - note his careful use of language here. I suspect this was rather more than the typical attendance for non religious people, which tends to be for 'invite events' e.g. christenings, weddings and funerals.