The fall of religion in America

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Plazma Inferno!, Mar 29, 2016.

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    The article doesn't generalise all US Christians the way you do.
    That is the difference.
    I note that my sentence contains the words "religion", "worst", "judge" - but since when do we interpret a sentence simply on some of the words it contains, rather than the order in which all the words of the sentence appear and the actual meaning?
    I.e. where in my sentence do I ever mention judging a religion as worse, or even imply it?
    No, he was demonstrating his view of religion.
    I will repeat again: I find his view of what constitutes a religion... odd.
    Your subsequent comments remain seemingly irrelevant - unless you perhaps want to show how environmentalism is somehow a religion?
    And no, I'm not talking about "religion" in the purely metaphorical sense, in the manner that some regard football as their religion.
    Are you?
     
    Ophiolite likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I made no such assumption.
    But tell me if you see religiosity like that, native to anywhere else in the world?



    Firstly, Catholicism is a European religion.
    Secondly, there is an American version of Catholicism.

    I'm not being offensive. You are.

    I rest my case.

    jan.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Have you stopped beating you wife yet?

    So where did the idea of... but do you really intend to judge a religion by the worst of its supposed practitioners?... come from, if not from you?

    jan.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    You do make that assumption by generalising your response solely to that brand.
    You don't get out much, do you.
    Try looking at Nigeria, for a start.
    They almost put the US to shame with this brand of evangelism.
    Did I say otherwise?
    Are you denying that there are Catholics in the US?
    I am not referring to them.
    I am referring to those Catholics who hold the Pope as the highest authority on earth as pertaining to their God.
    You are simply ignoring them, as you also avoid any other that is not part of your evangelistic generalisation.
    You equate all religious people in the US to the evangelical stereotype and you don't think you're being offensive?
    And how am I being offensive?
    Or is this simply you reverting to childhood games of "No, you are!"
    If you don't want people to call you out for talking bullshit, I suggest you stop doing so.
    How is what I wrote in any way a leading question?
    If you can't accept the criticism at least demonstrate you understand it with a sensible rebuttal, rather than pulling another turd out.
    That came from me, but it has no implication of judging a religion as being somehow worse.
    I have made no mention of one religion being better or worse, but all religions have practitioners that are better or worse.
    You seem to be conflating the two.
    I suggest you don't and stick to what is written - in the order it is written and thus the meaning that was intended, please, and not the interpretation you simply wish it to be.
     
    Ophiolite likes this.
  8. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Jan, your gross misinterpretation of Baldeee's comments on the "worst practitioners of a religion" is quite bizarre. I see four possibilities:

    1) You have recently developed serious reading comprehension difficulties.
    2) You have been very casual in your misreading of the passages.
    3) You are trolling.
    4) You are working to an agenda that requires a belief that he said what you incorrectly claim.

    Whichever explanation is valid, you owe an apology. Will you surprise me by actually offering Baldeee one?
     
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    You're a lier.
    I didn't generalise, or assume that ALL CHRISTIANS are the former of the two links.
    They demonstrated extreme examples.

    If you were being honest you would have said that I generalise European Christianity as well, by showing the latter.
    But you're not being honest.

    These type of religious organisations are no more indigenous to Nigeria, as they are in China.



    The constitute approximately 23% of the Christian population in the US, as opposed to the Protestant movement which is over 50% of the populace.
    I am referring to the majority.

    No I didn't.
    How is showing that video a (extreme from my perspective) representation of the whole of Christianity, offensive, from your perspective?

    Let me put it another way. What makes a practitioner of a religion, better or worse, than other practitioners?
    Doesn't it have something to do with the tenets of that religion?
    Bare in mind that it may be likely that you believe there is no evidence that there is any truth, in any religion that preaches the glory of god.

    jan.
     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    None of you explanations are valid, so I will not be offering an apology.

    jan.
     
  11. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    So now we get to the part of the discussion where you claim not to have said anything, and accuse others of lying and dishonesty.
    Didn't take long for you to drag this discussion to the cesspool, simply because you couldn't recognise your offensive generalisation.
    Ah well.
     
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I neither said or implied that the link in question was representative of American Christianity. And I have never said or implied it in any discussion on Sciforums. Plus I have since explained that both Vids were extreme cases.
    Your incessant accusations are therefore wilfully untrue.

    I haven't dragged this thread to the cesspool. I responded to OP. You're the one who has decided to take it down this route.

    Jan.
     
  13. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    So what explanation do you offer for your misunderstanding of a very clear statement by Baldeee? (And politeness and forum etiquette require that you should offer an explanation.)
     
  14. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    Post #3 (your first): you state that THE religion in America is an American religion, that it is a style that has been manufactured in America, for Americans.
    Accepting that you are limiting the discussion to just Christianity, your comments are a gross generalisation and offensive to all those Americans that do not follow what you deem to be an "American religion".
    But you clearly generalise within this post that Christians within America follow what you deem to be "an American religion".

    Post #15 (your second): You state that "We can distinguish, with relative ease, the difference between The American Christianity, and The European form of Christianity. Perhaps it's that you can't." and you follow that immediately with two youtube clips, one of stereotypical evangelic preachers and the other of a more sombre form, actually an Easter service from Mexico.
    The implication is inescapable that you were linking "The American Christianity" to the former, and "The European form of Christianity" to the latter.
    Since you have previously generalised that The American Christianity is the form followed by Christians in America, this thus exacerbated your offensive position by effectively generalising all Christians in America as following the style espoused by the evangelic preachers.

    Post #22: You post a further video to make the point that the style you deem to be "The American Christianity" is not found anywhere else, which is patently wrong, as already noted to you.
    Thus you continue your offensiveness.

    Then you claim that Catholicism is a European religion, as if this excuses you from considering Catholics in America in your responses.
    i.e. you are generalising and in doing so being offensive to those people.

    It really should be obvious to you that you were generalising, and being offensive by doing so.
    Subsequently it is simply a matter of you trying to argue your way out of the obvious - thus destroying the discussion.
    Only after the offensiveness of your generalisation had been pointed out to you.
    It neither excuses nor explains away those generalisations, nor the offense but rather simply explains why that generalisation is offensive.
    Why would you think that referencing an extreme as being the generalisation of American Christians would not be offensive?
    It is a pity you think that.
    I would have thought that pointing out that you were being offensive would have led to you recognising it and simply apologising.
    But you have gone the alternate route of denying and trying to counter with accusations of your own.
    What a pity.
    Then simply apologise for being offensive with your generalisation and we can move on.
     
  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    In post 546 Baldeee said... but the majority (by population) of religions in the US are pretty much in line with their European counterparts from which they were formed.

    His next line was... As for you not seeing any relation to the teachings of Jesus, or his philosophies, I suggest you remove your blinkers and perhaps take a stroll into some local churches and see for yourself what they preach, what the congregations do etc.

    ''Local churches'' are the ''religions'' he talked about in the previous sentences that are ''in line with their European counterparts from which they were formed''
    In the area where I live, there are about 4 ''local churches'' which have there counterparts in the US.

    If he was talking about religion in general, Islam, Buddism, etc, then he wouldn't have based his response on, me not seeing any relation to the teachings of Yeshua.

    Finally he said... Yes, there will be some poor examples upon which you could make an argument, but do you really intend to judge a religion by the worst of its supposed practitioners?

    ''Poor examples'' of what?
    ''Practitioners'' could mean individual practitioners, or whole churches. A ''worst'' practitioner could be a single person not doing right by his religion, or a whole church not doing right the Christian religion.

    And finally. To assume that there is a better or worse practitioner is to have some understanding of the professed religion. Be it from a individual practitioner, to a whole church.
    As there are many different churches, or ''religions that are in line with their European counterparts'', it stands to reason that there is some standard that he judges ''practitioners'' by.

    jan.
     
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Okay.

    I'm not limiting it to Christianity. It is the dominant religion in the US, and the decline of ''religion'' in America, is a decline in Christianity, more than the other religions. But remember I did say that it is a style of religion, makes it American. The way it is put across.
    Not that it is a different religion.
    I believe it is the American style of religion that is a major contribution to its decline of religion,

    Why didn't you regard them as both stereotypical? One lively, and one sombre.
    A big reason for the decline in Christianity, is the boredom.



    Of course I was.

    No. I said there there is a style that distinguishes American Christianity, from European Christianity. And while that style is extreme in it's liveliness, as opposed to the boring one, it never the less is a product of the American style of Christianity, and more importantly, a predominant one. One that we all identify.

    It's found in Nigeria because it was brought to Nigeria. It is not indigenous (perhaps I should have used indigenous rather than native).
    You will also find that American style of Christianity in China also, but it didn't just arise out of their culture.

    jan.
     
  17. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Jan , thank you for taking the time to respond.

    My entire intervention relates to your misunderstanding of the paragraph with "poor examples" and " worst practitioners of religion". A practitioner is an individual. Not even the most liberal (i.e. far ranging) interpretation of the word allows it to be applied to a group, or a church, as you suggest is possible. In this regard you are simply wrong.

    Thus the explanation for your misreading is an edit of my mechanism 1.

    "1) You have recently developed serious reading comprehension difficulties."

    Perhaps the problem is not recent. Perhaps it is limited to this single word. But it assuredly exists. Practitioners are always individuals. Perhaps you can take comfort in the fact that you have learned something today.
     
  18. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    You said "The religion in America, is an American religion".
    You are now clarifying your position, fair enough, but that doesn't excuse the original generalisation.
    Possibly so.
    Would have been easier simply to have said this up front, would it not, without the generalisation and offensiveness?
    I wasn't aware it was a stereotype.
    But if you think it is then it merely increases the offensiveness of your generalisations.
    And therein lies the offensiveness, given your previous generalisation.
    I'm guessing you still can't see it.
    Ah, well.
    But not seeing it does not mean that you didn't cause offense.
    You are still generalising and you clearly can not see it.
    Yes, there is an evangelic style but it is not clear it is the majority in the US, although it might attract the most attention.
    Yes, it is a distinct style from the other Christian sects.
    But you can not, as you do, generalise American religion the way you do: "The religion in America, is an American religion" (i.e. discounting others) and then clearly associate that religion in America to the evangelic stereotype that you admitted to want us to associate it with.
    What has that to do with the price of eggs?
    Why should we discount something from an argument simply because it didn't originate there (not that I necessarily concur that it did start in the US)?
    Should we therefore discount Christianity entirely from the debate simply because it didn't start in the US??
     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    It takes a bunch of individuals to make a ''poor example'' of a religion.
    One or two sex scandals in a church can be put down to individuals, but when it is rampant, the emphasis changes to the institution itself.

    It's not that I don't acknowledge that Baldeee could mean individual practitioners, I acknowledge that single practitioners acting inappropriately, are not poor examples of the religion, unless they are the embodiment of that religion (Jim Jones, David Koresh).

    jan.
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    No. I clarified it in the same post... ''I think the religion in America, is an American religion (God bless America!). What I mean is that it is a style that has been manufactured in America, for Americans.'' You simply didn't want to see that part.

    Here you go again.
    Can't you just chill out for a bit?

    We're discussing the decline in religion in America, and while that may not be the religion of all Christians, it is what the world sees (especially with the rise of televangelists). All I'm saying is that I think this plays a big role in the decline of religion in the states. There's no need for the claws.

    I think it is a product of the ''American style of religion'', nothing like the indigenous religion of Nigeria.

    You're right Christianity didn't start in the US, but the ''American style of Christianity'' did.

    jan.
     
  21. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    I saw that part and it alters nothing: you are generalising about religion in America by considering just the one ("the religion in America") irrespective of how you then describe that style.
    It is still, per you, the religion in America.
    If by "chill" you mean ignore your offensive remarks, I would have done had you acknowledged it initially.
    You didn't.
    You continue to expound that offence every time you try to explain your way out.
    Then perhaps you should be careful with the way you express your views.
    I found them to be offensive to all religious people in the US that you were generalising under what you subsequently admitted was an "extreme".
    Again, what has that to do with the price of eggs?
    The style exists in Nigeria as well as the US.
    It is irrelevant who started that type of preaching, and it certainly wasn't the US: evangelising has been around for rather a long time before such religions set foot on the soil there.
    The US certainly popularised it within the Pentecostal church culminating in the Azusa street revival, and from there it spread, including via international missions.
    If by "American style" you mean the "style that started in America" then it is a tautology: you are basically just saying that that which started in America started in America.
    Yet I'm still wondering of the relevance to the price of eggs.
     
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    That doesn't make sense, Plazma. Even if we assume that 100% of Americans believed in God in the 1980s (too high), if only half as many believe in God today, that would put the current percentage at close to 50% (too low).

    I think that self-identified religious adherence is declining in the United States just as it is in many other Western countries, though not as rapidly as in places like the UK or Denmark. By that I mean self-identification as a member in an organized religious denomination or church group. Actual participation rates are even lower. About twice as many Americans self-identify as Episcopalians/Anglicans (largely for reasons of family tradition) as show up regularly for communion. Non-participation rates are very high among some Catholic groups in the US too. (Many Irish Catholics call themselves 'Catholics' for ethnic reasons but rarely enter churches except for weddings and funerals.)

    Given the increasingly distant relationship between many self-styled adherents and the churches they say they adhere to, it isn't surprising to see many people cutting the cord entirely. So-called 'nones' (non-adherents) are the fastest-growing religious grouping (if you can call them that) in the country in terms of numbers. There's a more modest growth of the traditional non-Christian religions, largely through immigration but with some conversions. And there's a very noticeable growth in unconventional religiosity, 'new age' and other forms of religious eclecticism, especially here in California. That might be the fastest-growing group in percentage terms, but from a very small base.

    None of this correlates closely with belief in the literal existence of 'God', since many of the 'nones' will still say that they do believe in God and a surprising number of self-styled 'Christians' and 'Jews' (to say nothing of the Buddhists) don't. My sense is that most of the surveys and statistics have about 80% of the US population saying that they believe in God. That's somewhat higher than the rate of religious adherence, I think.

    One complicating factor is that Americans often use the word 'God' differently than Europeans. In the US, 'God' is often used in a very vague sense to mean 'the Transcendent' or something like that. I remember a friend, a highly-secular engineer who never attended church and never in my memory picked up a Bible, once saying that anyone who doesn't believe in God is stupid. That surprised me, so I asked him what he meant by 'God'. He waved his arm and said 'There has to be more to reality than this!' I'm an atheist/agnostic, and I agree with that sentiment. I just wouldn't call it 'God'.

    In many European countries, significantly smaller percentages of the population say that they believe in God than we find in the US. But... if you ask the Europeans if they believe in something like a 'higher power', the percentages rise significantly, to nearer the percentage of Americans who say that they believe in God. My own feeling is that the underlying religiosity is similar, but the terminology is different, largely for reasons of culture and history. Europe has a history of oppressive state-churches and resulting anti-clericalist movements that the US never saw. The US was settled in part by those trying to escape the European struggles over religion. The free-exercise of religion is part of the American self-image and is perceived here as a good thing.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2016
    Sarkus and Plazma Inferno! like this.
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Of course it explains what I meant. I even said ''What I mean is...''

    Aw.. did you?
    I don't believe you.
    Then you're not going to like these generalizations.


    One of the enduring puzzles of America is why it has remained so robustly religious while its European cousins have secularised with startling rapidity. One stock answer is that America, colonised by religious dissenters and lacking an officially sanctioned creed, has always been a cauldron of religious competition and, therefore, innovation. The path to success in a competitive religious marketplace is the same as the path to success in business: give the people what they want...


    ...The tolerant Jesus of Mr Cobia and Ms Jenner may not be the Jesus of Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther or John Knox or John Wesley. He is a Jesus perhaps more thoroughly invested in the "autonomous eroticised individualism" of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman than any first-century reinterpretation of the Judaic law. But that is the American and still-Americanizing Jesus of many millions of believers who, like Caitlyn Jenner, attend non-denominational evangelical churches, and who, like Caitlyn Jenner, vote Republican.
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...6/conservative-politics-and-american-religion


    The powerful influence of American culture has, for quite some time, seeped into the Christian faith to the point where we have an entirely new product. Instead of Christianity as it was passed onto the disciples and early church, we have a uniquely American version– and one we’d do well to dissect until we’ve found freedom from it, and freedom to return home to the life and message of Jesus
    http://wizbangblog.com/2015/11/02/i...-real-deal-or-is-it-the-americanized-version/


    [American]“Christianity” means summer camps, pizza parties, conferences, exciting guest speakers, mission trips to exotic destinations, concerts, music festivals, and high-energy church services. Entertainment, tranquility, and consumerism reign supreme.And if you experience any sort of dissatisfaction or discomfort you’ll leave and go somewhere else!

    Christian education, worship, ministry, missions, and fellowship centers around the quest for entertainment. What can you get from it? The greatest benefactor of Christianity is yourself —not others. The worst enemy of American Christianity isn’t heresy — it’s boredom.

    Obviously, many Christians are more complex and inspiring than the attributes listed above, but we need to start realizing the influence American culture has on our faith.
    - See more at: https://sojo.net/articles/7-marks-stereotypical-american-christian#sthash.cOVCFDDY.dpuf
    https://sojo.net/articles/7-marks-stereotypical-american-christian


    America is known as a Christian nation, but the Christianity practiced by American adherents is looking less and less like the teachings of Jesus.
    Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/45161/#ugIVjY5WrMtbFWk9.99
    Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/45161/#FxmKMuFQQCLllk6o.99

    Read and weep boy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    jan.

     
    Last edited: May 27, 2016

Share This Page