 |
|
|
|
 Catholics attend Mass in Seoul, South Korea. When Pope Francis visits the country this week, he will find a thriving Catholic community .
August 12th, 2014
05:08 PM ET
Why South Korea could be the church of futureOpinion by Candida Moss, special to CNN [twitter-follow screen_name='CandidaMoss'] (CNN) – When Pope Francis arrives in South Korea on Wednesday for a five-day visit, he’ll get a look at just the kind of church he’s been trying to create worldwide. The trip, planned to coincide with Asia Youth Day, marks the first time a pope has visited the country since 1989, and is part of a new papal focus on globalization in general and on Asia in particular. (Francis plans to visit Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Japan in January.) The time has long passed that the Catholic Church is elderly white men and women in European enclaves. The last papal conclave and the election of the first Latin American Pope raised awareness of the Catholic Church’s growing presence in Africa, but Asian Christianity was hardly mentioned at all. Even if it is rarely discussed in the media, Korean Catholicism is among the most vibrant in the world. Here are five reasons South Korea might be the future of Catholic Church. 1. It’s growing. Catholics make up almost 11% of South Korea’s 50 million population. This may seem like a small percentage, but consider this: In 1960, they only made up 2%. In contrast to Europe, the majority of South Korean Catholics – as is the broader population of the region – are young. Vocations to the ministry are also strong. At the end of 2013, South Korea’s 5.4 million Catholics were served by 4,261 priests, with a further 1,489 seminarians in the pipeline, according to church statistics. In other words, not only is Christianity growing in South Korea, but it’s increasing in popularity among young people. And, in contrast to Europe and the United States, there are enough priests and seminarians to minister to this expanding group. 2. It’s rich. Catholics in South Korea are increasingly prosperous. In an interview with Catholic News Service, Bishop William McNaughton, who served as the first bishop of Inchon from 1962 until 2002, recalled that when he arrived in the country, most of his congregation was poor. Now, he says, they wealthier than average. While the economic prospects of Catholics have undoubtedly risen with those of South Korea as a whole, McNaughton attributes the financial success of Catholics there to the excellence of Catholic education. Whether or not the prosperity of Korean Catholics is because of Catholic education or regional economic growth is less important than the encouraging contrast it forms to the church in other parts of the world. Church attendance in Europe and the United States has been declining for decades. Meanwhile, in poorer, developing countries, the church has expanded and taken on an increasingly fundamentalist character. The decline of the Catholic Church in wealthy countries is often linked to the rise of secularism, access to higher education and economic growth. The fear is that as people acquire more education and money, they no longer need God. This doesn’t seem to be the case in South Korea, where wealth, education and church expansion continue to go together. 3. It competes in a tough environment. Some commentators have speculated that Christianity in South Korea succeeds because of the spirituality in the region. That’s not exactly true. In 2005, nearly half the population describe themselves are “irreligious.” The region has a rich religious history, but today South Korea is among the most secular countries in the world. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI identified the “secular state” as one of the chief threats to the Catholic Church in the 21st century, crediting it as one of the causes of declining church attendance in Europe. That Catholicism continues to flourish in a culture that is broadly speaking nonreligious should encourage church leaders. It proves it can be done. 4. It’s self-supporting. The history of Christianity on the Korean Peninsula involves not only growth and increased prosperity, but also persecution and martyrdom. Christianity was legalized in then-unified Korea only in 1886 and for much of that time has been largely self-sufficient. In the wake of World War II, the country was divided in the communist North and the capitalistic South in 1945. The CIA Factbook notes that autonomous religious activities are "now almost nonexistent" in North Korea. The geographical distance from the Vatican has allowed local bishops to have more autonomy and decentralized the church. As Tom Fox, author of “Pentecost in Asia,” has said, “the starting point of the Asian church has always been the local church.” This is the model of local governance and evangelization that Pope Francis has tried to encourage and promote in the church in general. 5. It’s committed to social justice. Korea was largely evangelized by lay activists, not organized missionary campaigns. This history gives the current church in South Korea an independent streak. Masses end with instructions to “evangelize the world” rather than return home, a call that local Catholics take to heart. This missionary activity is matched by a focus on improving the living conditions their troubled neighbors in North Korea. That charity endears the Catholic Church to both religious and nonreligious South Koreans, who might otherwise be suspicious. It’s for all these reasons that Francis told Il Messaggero in June that “the church in Asia holds great promise.” In the Pope’s mind, it seems, the South Korean example may hold the secret to the future of the Catholic Church.
Next entry »5 ways Pope Francis is tougher than you think
« Previous entryDramatic rescue as Yazidis flee ISIS
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
I believe that when looking at any written document, you have to consider the source.
When reading from The Onion, you need to understand it is humor and satire. Do not take it as science or science.
When reading posts from awanderingscot about science, keep in mind that he likes to quote scientists from at least 3 generations ago and accept their words as if they were spoken by leading scientists today. Do not believe there is any valid anything concerning evolution.
When reading the bible, remember that it was compiled by people who had a job to do. An Emperor in Rome with a history of killing people would have been rather upset if they hadn’t produced a book that he could use to unite and control the people. Do not believe it was written for any other purpose.
"compiled by people who had a job to do" and "Do not believe it was written for any other purpose." The Bible is, you are correct, a compilation. But to imply it was "written" by the those who compiled the books is wrong. I don't think you meant to suggest that it was written by those who compiled the books together, but it should be clear all the same.
I believe Alias is implying it could have easily been edited along the way.
Except that manuscripts of the various books still exist which predate the eventual compilation by hundreds of years and they are consistent with the end product.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear–. I meant considering which things to include and which to exclude versus making changes.
Oh, I see Alias already cleared that up.
"Except that manuscripts of the various books still exist which predate the eventual compilation by hundreds of years and they are consistent with the end product."
Citation please? "Consistent" is a bit nebulous in this instance... one popular quote I've heard is that are more differences in our early manuscripts than there are words in the NT. Not to say all differences are significant but still...
G to the T
They obviously had to decide which ancient writing to include and which one to discredit if they didn't agree. It is not coincidence that many things wre left out.
You are both corret –
I should have said compiled insted of written.
I also think that the decision of what things to include or ignore was a form of editing. They could have put together a very different book if they had worked with a different agenda.
True – there was a lively debate about whether John's or Peter's apocalypses should be included – many felt that Peter's work was superior to the revelation of John – but in the end – his was included and Peter's wasn't.
One can edit by omission. Several hundred "gospels" were omitted from the compilation. As early church fathers voted books in and out, they were effectively shaping the message they wanted to send.
Humans have unlimited capacity to love. True love seeks towards purity rather than impure ways and thoughts toward the object of their love and others by default. Love as it grows worships purity then begins to assimilate purity as it approaches the higher level of being. This is truth
Jesus said to love God and love others as this is the way. Christ was the highest level of love known in man so it would be natural to be in Christ if one knows love. Looks like the New Testament captured what was most important. Darn those editors.
Fred
The New Testament that you love so much is exactly what those editors decided it shold be.
You worship a god based on their agenda.
Alias
Not really. Just for the moment clear you thought about religion and the God of theology. Now tell me what is wrong with this statement I made:
"Humans have unlimited capacity to love. True love seeks towards purity rather than impure ways and thoughts toward the object of their love and others by default. Love as it grows worships purity then begins to assimilate purity as it approaches the higher level of being. This is truth
"I believe that when looking at any written doc-ment, you have to consider the source."
That applies to what you are writing, too. You tell people not to believe it was written for any other reason than they one you theorize about? Sorry, but your explanation seems a bit too simplistic to be sufficient.
"True love seeks towards purity rather than impure ways and thoughts toward the object of their love and others by default"
Thank you fred, so well said. This is why those who cannot reconcile God with Love willfully misquote, misinterpret, and mislead.
Fred
You claim to know what true love is and what it seeks.
I claim you are just trying to avoid accepting the truth in what I posted.
new-man
What is divine is pure. When asked how I know God is unique relative to other gods from antiquity it is simply Gods burning holiness. A purity that vaporizes impurity. The gods of old had the tendency to be more deviant than the men who made them. God stands alone separate from mans impurity and apart such that even Moses had to be hidden behind a rock when the Glory of God passed by. The impurity in man (sin) was taken away by Christ so that in Christ we can be in the presence of God.
new-man
Your ideas about god, what he is and what he ewants, are all based on the book that was compiled on the order of an Emperor – not a man who really cared anything about god. He wanted to increase his position, he would have used any other religion to achieve that end.
Alias
No, truth is truth it cannot be modified by truth or untruth. Truth cannot be modified by your opinion, my opinion or the editors of the New Testament.
This is not a dodge. I would like to know what is wrong with this statement:
""Humans have unlimited capacity to love. True love seeks towards purity rather than impure ways and thoughts toward the object of their love and others by default. Love as it grows worships purity then begins to assimilate purity as it approaches the higher level of being. This is truth"
Alias,
I'm not surprised that Russ' correction to your unfounded statement would not be heeded, that you would continue in willful ignorance as though nothing was said.
Friend, we're all teachable... try to learn something.
fred,
every time someone writes a gem as this, I know it's revelation received through the Holy Spirit.
Such a Blessing, thank you.
hello newman
"every time someone writes a gem as this, I know it's revelation received through the Holy Spirit."
You know nothing of the kind. why do you always claim to know that which you only believe?
Are you having trouble separating reality from your delusion?
Just another one who cannot tell the difference between knowledge and belief. Sad really.
fred, new-man
You two seem to have quite the bromance starting. I'm happy to have contributed in any small way
""Humans have unlimited capacity to love. True love seeks towards purity rather than impure ways and thoughts toward the object of their love and others by default. Love as it grows worships purity then begins to assimilate purity as it approaches the higher level of being. This is truth"
I don't accept your idea that 'true love seeks toward purity'. I think you are accepting things you want to be true as being true. ' Love as it grows worships purity then begins to assimilate purity as it approaches the higher level of being' is just psychobabble. It would have made for decent poetry in another context, but it has a lovesick teenage girl feel toward approaching any absolute truth.
igaftr, Alias:
But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.
Alias
I don't accept your idea that 'true love seeks toward purity'
=>You took it out of context. Here is the complete sentence;" True love seeks towards purity rather than impure ways and thoughts toward the object of their love and others by default."
=>You don't believe true love seeks towards purity rather than impure ways and thoughts?
Seriously????
"I think you are accepting things you want to be true as being true. "
=>Are we not all predisposed to doing this? But, yes I have several pairs of rose colored glasses
"Love as it grows worships purity then begins to assimilate purity as it approaches the higher level of being' is just psychobabble."
=>No, purity of mind and thought is not psychobabble. I think it easy to comprehend that if you experience pure love directed at you that your love grows in deeper appreciation of that pure love. The process of assimilation magnifies the purest such that it is always a higher level of purity not a lower level. If you experience a lower level there is an impurity being introduced.
"it has a lovesick teenage girl feel toward approaching any absolute truth."
=>It starts with a spark not a forest fire.
Fred
I love my wife, my daughter, sunsets, my favorite restaurants, my mother, and my friends. One word can have many different meanings. If you are trying to define love and tell us how it works you are in the wrong forum. It is a very complicated thing and you must be specific in context.
However, your bible was still compiled by people with an agenda and you should keep that in mind when you read it.
Alias
The agenda was to save your soul.
Hey fred is your soul mate Wilma Flintstone ?
Dark Matter ?
https://www.snolab.ca/
hello newman...
Your entire response was nothing more than your self delusion and baseless beliefs.
Please try to join us in the real world sometime, won't you?
"The agenda was to save your soul."
Fred: Where is the scientifically based evidence supporting the existence of a soul? If you can't point to it, then your point is moot. It is sad to see people like you play the Holier Than Thou card and pretending to care when in fact it is stuck in that tiny closed mind of yours that all non-believers; all those who are LGBT; all those who have abortions, etc. are going to the fictional place called hell simply for not obeying this fictional god.
TruthPrevails1
"Where is the scientifically based evidence supporting the existence of a soul?"
=>Scientific method cannot address fields that fall outside its self imposed limits. Science does not have evidence for many things you accept as fact. The things of God is just something you like to pick on because you have a sense that atheism cannot be the only way.
"If you can't point to it, then your point is moot"
=>Soul is just one of many things Science cannot figure out like :Gravity, the speed of light beyond the limit of horizon, the very existence of numbers, how Monarch butterflies return to location, time smaller than Planck length, noise that travels through space etc.
"It is sad to see people like you play the Holier Than Thou card and pretending to care"
=>you have a very distorted view of others. Often times people are most sensitive to the faults in others that they themselves suffer from. You seem to be hung up not being discovered as weak and needing God or a caring Christian.
=>Holier than Thou card is not the same as a desire for purity and holiness.
"stuck in that tiny closed mind of yours"
=>No, right and wrong exist for a reason and doing right is seldom wrong.
"non-believers; all those who are LGBT; all those who have abortions, etc. are going to the fictional place called hell simply for not obeying this fictional god."
=>No one knows who God has called except God. Sin does not send you to hell it separates you from God. There is a way that is right before God and if desire the way it is open to everyone.
@ Alias:
anachronism: an act of attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong.
seeing as how the Bible was written AND compiled while Christianity was considered an enemy of the Roman state, your argument fails historically. note well: the Muratorian Canon (c. AD 180) vs. Constantine's "conversion" (AD 312).
The Bible with which we are now familiar was not formally assembled and Certified Wholly Holy and Inerrant until 325CE.
@ Doc:
on the contrary, most of those who assert the inerrancy of the Bible claim the authority is in the autographs, not in the councils.
and the Muratorian fragment is almost unanimously regarded as late 2nd century – well before Rome regarded itself as anything BUT anti-Christian. that fragment clearly demonstrates the compiling began well before any political maneuvering.
Of course the Bible had existed in various forms – but which books became official Canon was decided at the Council of Nicea.
@ Doc: another helpful article here (as my response to TTTOO):
"In the end, we can certainly acknowledge that humans played a role in the canonical process. But, not the role that is so commonly attributed to them. Humans did not determine the canon, they responded to it. In this sense, we can say that the canon really chose itself."
– Michael J Kruger
http://michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize-8-the-nt-canon-was-not-decided-at-nicea-nor-any-other-church-council/
There are 66 books in the Protestant Bible, 73 in the Catholic, 78 in Eastern Orthodox, 81 in Ethiopian Orthodox and 65 in the Mormon.
If the canon chose itself, why the discrepancies?
The Muratorian Canon is not an actual assembly of works, Russ. It appears to be a list of literature accepted to a degree known to its unknown author. It may include works (perhaps prototypes of works) known to us, it also includes works unknown to us. So, what exactly is canon?
Here's a helpful article:
"Thus, the Muratorian fragment stands as a reminder of two important facts. First, Christians did disagree over books from time to time. That was an inevitability, particularly in the early stages. But this list also reminds us of a second (and more fundamental) fact, namely that there was widespread agreement over the core from a very early time."
– Michael J Kruger
http://michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize-6-at-the-end-of-the-second-century-the-muratorian-fragment-lists-22-of-our-27-nt-books-2/
We've disagreed on this before, Russ. A list of ti tles is not a body of works. Show me the works and then we can know if they are at all what people are reading in their Bibles.
Here is another one:
According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), (a bust of Constantine is pictured below) who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.
Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action – MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence.
http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm
I'm willing to consider that both may have biases. You don't seem to be so opne minded.
I'm not the one who needs the history lesson Russ.
Try Google.
@ Alias: appears you didn't even google it or you'd realize your mistake. you might want to take your own advice.
You can always find one person to dissagree.
That does not invalidate the majority opinion or change historical facts.
Alias
"When reading the bible, remember that it was compiled by people who had a job to do. An Emperor in Rome with a history of killing people would have been rather upset if they hadn’t produced a book that he could use to unite and control the people. Do not believe it was written for any other purpose."
=>Your error is to assume the entire Bible was edited and rewritten for some purpose onto an Emperor in Rome. Unfortunately, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls from 200-450 BC that track the key books of the Bible virtually 99.9%. The New Testament and Old track perfectly as to purpose of creation, plan of creation, salvation, redemption and basically anything one needs if the truly wish to seek the way, the truth and the life.
believerfred, in your estimation, how many years of history are represented by the claims of the Bible starting with Genesis?
Genesis opens with "in the beginning God" which in terms of time and space would be an eternal position we cannot comprehend nor can we create an abstract landscape that captures dimensions greater than 11 as tensors become meaningless without boundary.
As to our universe where God said let there be light this time is assumed but is not known. Typical consensus is based on Lambda-CDM concordance model which is approaching 14 billion years.
As to history of man this is unclear and dependent upon which Hebrew term was used for Adam (i.e man 6,000+ years ago or mankind 90-200 thousand years ago). The age of Adam is further clouded if counting of years is dependent on time before or after he entered the fallen world. Cain used bronze so if our estimate of such tool dating is correct in the area of Iraq, it would be 5,400 years ago.
Fred
Now you are just trying to agrue because you don't want to see the truth in what I posted.
I never said the entire bible was edited. The old testament wsa already done by then. I read something about the jews working on it for thousands of years. Please enlighten me as to any books in the New Testament that are found in anything written from 200-450 BC.
Christianity began with the New Testament. One of the first things they had to do was make all the old testament rules go away, and the book of Acts did that. They never could have converted others without making it easier to live by. The entire idea that jesus said the old rules still applied, but the ey were written off anyway should cause you to give what I posted a fresh look.
Saul of Tarsus knew the Old Testament inside out and until his conversion was out killing Christians at the order of the Priests. Later known as Paul wrote the majority of books in the New Testament which is not in question by reputable historians. Paul did a lot of reconciling between the old and the new. The books included in the New Testament were written beginning about 50 AD. The Bible is viewed as a whole by Christians and there is no conflict between old and new. Perhaps that is thanks to Paul and the editors you claim but it is written and it is the Bible.
The truth is not in the codex but speaks to the person who is reading it if they are open to truth. You will find that when you read the Bible your concept of God is revealed. Some on this site read the Bible and claim God is a killer and a liar while others find the love willing to give his own life so that you may find life eternal.
And some of us read the bible with anopen mind instead of starting eith the conclusoin it is the word of some god. We concluded that the book is flawed on many levels and there is no good reason to think your god exists.
Didn't the DSS contain books that aren't considered canon? Why use that as an authority of what is?
Sickness is an Enemy
And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multi.tude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick. (Mt. 14:14)
God does not afflict His children with sickness. If a natural father were to do such a thing they would be arrested for child abuse and thrown in jail. For some reason there are those who think that God makes His children sick, or allows them to be sick and it should be called a blessing. No. God's will and God's heart can be seen in Jesus who healed all who came to Him. There is no account of Jesus ever making someone sick in the New Testament 'for His glory.' There is no account of Jesus ever leaving someone sick 'to teach them something.' There is no account of Jesus ever refusing to heal someone who came to Him. Jesus came to destroy the works of the enemy (1 Jn. 3:8) and went about healing all who were oppressed of the devil for God was with Him (Acts 10:38).
God perfects us through His Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17). He does not need sickness to perfect His children. He placed all sickness on Jesus. It would be unjust for Him to place it on you. He no more uses sickness to perfect us than He would use sin. He went to the cross to deliver us from both sin and sickness.
B.Bennett CBC
Not one scrap of evidence verifying any of that actually happened.
after reading a few sentences his words start to sound like the swedish chef in my head...
"Gud dues nut effffleect Hees cheeldree veet seeckness. Iff a netoorel fezeer vere-a tu du sooch a theeng zeey vuoold be-a errested fur cheeld eboose-a und throon in jeeel. Fur sume-a reesun zeere-a ere-a thuse-a vhu theenk thet Gud mekes Hees cheeldree seeck, oor elloos zeem tu be-a seeck und it shuoold be-a celled a blesseeng. Nu.
Bork Bork Bork!"
http://www.tuco.de/home/jschef.htm is awesome!!
never..
That actually made a lot more sense than most of our new-man's posts. Har-dee-har.
Now all we need is Ms. Piggy to karate some sence into new-man.
"There is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the Doctrine of Divine Mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. 'The Almighty,' he explained, 'finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores."
– Robert Heinlein
So all illness is diabolic in origin? Germs have nothing to do with it? Because I find it odd that anti-biotic would have an effect on something supernatural in origin.
Christian Scientists continue to deny the validity of Germ Theory.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill
Rush.
Well done.
Love this song. And the line "You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill" made me think of this Mark Twain quote:
"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven...." Mark Twain
Thank you for sharing that... I am keeping that for future use.
I am unfamiliar with that quote... which surprises me quite a bit. What is the source?
It's from his book "The Lowest Animal" written in 1896
Thanks... I'll be tracking that book down.
"He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight."
-That quote doesn't even make one bit of sense.
It's easier to talk about religion than it is to talk about Jesus. Jesus was never religious, so it makes sense the anti-Christ crowd will try to make everything Christ Jesus into a religion... yes, I know it doesn't help that some churches/Christians are religious, however that is not what Christianity is about.
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:7-11)
"-That quote doesn't even make one bit of sense."
So I take it you are not a student of history. That does explain a lot.
"however that is not what Christianity is about." I know, you Christians do always try your honest best...
new-man
Step outside your christian bubble for a change. The quote is about religions, you do not seem to understand that there are more than one. 9/11 comes to mind and all the present day wars still in progress. How can you possibly deny that religions have been a curse to the human race, including you nutty jesus freaks?
"yes, I know it doesn't help that some churches/Christians are religious..."
Just some? Not the vast majority?
Gangnam style was all over America for quite a while.
Maybe this is just karma.
A South Korean, SungWoo Lee, just took my city by storm!
My ex- Mother-in-law, is from Kentucky, but she has a Korean Accent.....it gets good gas milage.
igaftr
Dala.. is hallucinating again, Long Island was taken by storm, Sungwoo Lee threw a baseball, probably isn't even Catholic. Missouri, why?
He is a cool guy. I don't care what his beliefs are. I'm not sure why that makes me hallucinating, but I'm surprised you find a way to insult me no matter what I post. A lot of negative energy.
South Korean people have adopted a western economy and western lifestyles, so it's not surprising that some of them have fallen prey to some of the west's most effective scams.
Go K-Pop!!
If pressed to choose, I'd rather a heavier Catholic influence in South Korea as opposed to the evangelical Protestants.
The Koreans are unfortunately picking up some of the worst aspects of American protestantism – their Creationist lobby has been far more successful than their American counterparts and they've managed to get Biblical creationism wedged into science classes. Protestant groups have begun to condemn Buddhists from their fiery pulpits, burning their temples and destroying statues they've decreed idolatrous.
"...I'd rather a heavier Catholic influence in South Korea as opposed to the evangelical Protestants."
Agreed... strongly.
Couldn't be. That makes it sound like the christian faith is actually a tool of Satan.
If Satan were really in charge, that would contradict everything. Meaning jesus was really just a man, and Satan would have to be a god from another religion.
Satan has many tools at His disposal including Lego and My Little Pony, which are "carriers of death" – at least according to Father Slawomir Kostrzewa, a Polish priest.
1yr kimchi... smells like death
LET
I think there was a Polish Pope that was hooked on sausage, young sausage.
If God and Satan were both actually real, it would be much better if Satan actually were in charge. I mean that guy actually cares about humanity. He gave us knowledge instead of allowing us to be the unthinking puppets of that evil clown Yaweh. Plus, God has killed far far far more of us than Satan ever has. God is the obvious enemy of mankind.
as Andrew would say, "how dumb can you be and still breathe"
this is how much you have allowed satan to darken your mind, your understanding. you do not even know who your adversary is. what a darn shame.
Says the fellow who believes in fairy tales.....
In the story of Job... who is the most cruel and evil to Job?
LET,
the fact that you even ask that stupid question shows you don't know nor understand the Book of Job, just what some man-made doctrine (atheist/theist) said about it.
read for yourself, ask God to unveil your mind and give you understanding.
Rynomite, which is worse – the person who doesn't believe a thing but spends his time arguing his unbelief or the one who has knowledge of and experience God and knows without a shadow of a doubt of His existence.
You can use the term "fairy-tale" all you like, but when the spiritual is fully revealed, just who will be found naked friend.
what's your purpose on earth... do you think the purpose of God for man has changed because man got ensnared into a sin-nature and became separated from Him.
Even the demons believe there is one God, and tremble with fear.
God had given man a good world to live in. Satan introduced shame, deceit and blame to the world.
Nice deflection... but impotent... just like your fictional lord.
BTW the answer is, your christian god. He is the dick in the story of Job.
"which is worse" – I'm gonna go with the person who is making an argument using the hallucinations from his chemically imbalanced brain as evidence for anything......
My purpose is to live, love, educate my progeny, and make the world a better place for future people. God's purpose is (as it always has been) whatever mankind says it is....
"Even the demons believe there is one God, and tremble with fear." Even Voldemort believes Harry Potter is the chosen one and trembles with fear!
Hard to guess if new-man and Dala.. would slaughter their off spring if a voice in their head told them to do so, AKA this is the voice of GOD, really.
did Jesus not say that satan was the ruler of this world and the god of this system of things but only for a little while longer, see John 14:30, Eph.2:2, 2 cor.4:4, 1 cor.10:20, and especially 1 John 5:19. this is his world and as Rev.12:9-12 says for just a little while.
A little while must have been relative.
"Hey Hon, I'm going to the store." "How long will you be gone?"
"Just a little while."
the book of Revelation gives the statements and also leaves us with info about how long that is and when it started but no one knows when it will end but a little while certainly means his rule will end.
Revelation. The crazed piece of writing that the vast majority of the early church wanted excluded from the bible as it was inconsistent with the core messages. However, they were overruled by a Bishop who wanted a political tool to use against Christians that opposed his views and as a stick for pagan conversion$.
criticized only by those that do not understand.it
those that do not understand.it
Which is anyone who thinks that Revelation was about Jesus.
2000+ years and counting of 'He's coming soon! The end is nigh!" Wait for it, wait for it... oops! "Well, he's actually coming soon, but not right now. Maybe, next year!, Yeah, that's it. Next year!"
What a ridiculous fear-mongering religion.
Actually the joke is on the people who think they do understand it.
Best shaggy dog joke ever.
joey,
Revelation just means "revealing"... the book is about the revealing of Jesus Christ... which of course you totally missed yet here you are pretending to know otherwise.
Reveal what YOU know, since YOU know it's not about Jesus Christ.
So new-mna
What does 'act' mean? Let's place some proper interpretation on the book of acts, shall we?
NO, Revelation is about the fall of the Roman Empire, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus. Christians made that up after the fact.
Is it just me or have the sects of Christianity gone full circle?
Backward, oppressive Catholic church gave rise to (relatively) progressive Protestantism.
Protestants radicalize into evangelicals.
Now the Catholic Church is viewed as the (relatively) progressive Christian branch....
Meanwhile Anglican female clergy perform gay weddings and shake their heads at both groups.
Yup.
Reason #6
their children haven't been abused .... yet.
Just one more place for them to ship the peds off to.
And once again to put Vic et al on the right path to the real Jesus:
There was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
(the 200 plus references used for the above summary have been previously presented)
I always find it interesting that a "son of god" appears in Jerusalem shortly after Gaius Octavius, leader of Rome and most powerful man in the known world, takes the honorific Divi Filius as a political ploy.
Along with the 5.4 Catholics in South Korea, there are an estimated 9 million Christian Protestants as well. Christianity has been the predominant force behind the educational and economic growth in South Korea.
On a larger scale, China has experienced a rapid growth of Christianity in the past few decades. There are an estimated 58 million Christian Protestants in China belonging mainly to underground churches. Just last week, in its efforts to tighten the grip on Christianity, China announced its plan to nationalize Christianity.
As to why Christianity is growing at a rapid pace in Asia in general, I believe it is the epitome of the human need for purpose and perspective while inherently spiritual, especially given the void that Communism left in that part of the world.
p.s. I am surprised there hasn't been a Blog post on Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle as well as the termination of a California State University professor over a dinosaur fossil's soft tissue findings.
There are 5.6 Catholics in S. Korea? How do you count the .6 one...is he/she part Budhhist?
sorry. 5.4...my mistake....or was it?
"5.4 million"
From what I read, South Korea has modeled its capitalist economy after the United States due to the spread Protestantism.
"There is little evidence of a direct religion/growth nexus. Next we explore the question of whether religion may nevertheless be an indirect determinant of growth via growth proximates. We find no evidence to support this contention. As a result, we conclude that God is not in the details, at least not in so far as the claims that religion matters for growth."
– "Is God in the Details? A Reexamination of the Role of Religion in Economic Growth", Steven N. Durlauf, Andros Kourtellos, and Chih Ming Tan
Would Jesus have been a capitalist?
Rynomite – "Would Jesus have been a capitalist?"
Far more likely he'd have been a socialist or communist, I think.
Yes. I agree. Gospel Jesus = Socialist. Revelation Jesus = Totalitarian Communist.
I always find it amusing that today's Christians think he would have been capitalist when the Bible myths show otherwise.
Rynomite,
you should be one of the last persons to speculate on Jesus.
In the parable of the talents, the one who took his talents and buried it, the master [Jesus] took it and gave it to the 1st who was the more profitable.
You think that parable represents an endorsement in capitalism? Perhaps you need to turn off the Fox news and take a few economic theory classes. No economic system endorses sloth or failing to use ones skills. That parable would be equally applicable to those who believe in a socialistic system.
The same cannot be argued for the umpteen other times in the bible when Jesus condemns wealth, consumerism, and exhorts people to give away their belongings and help the poor. None of those can be considered capitalist at all.
Ah. The Prosperity Gospel.
Increases in educational standards in South Korea are the direct result of governmental policies enacted since the rapid growth in the country's GDP (discussed as response to Scotty's comment below).
The Ministry of Education has a budget of US$29 billion, six times what it was in 1990 – about 20 percent of the central government expenditure. The Korean government spends 3.4 percent of GDP on formal schooling; when taking private and informal schooling into account the amount nears 10 percent. Teachers are seen as a key part of that investment: OECD statistics place Korea 10th in rankings of entering teacher salaries. After fifteen years of service, Korean teachers move up to third place, demonstrating that the investment grows significantly over time.
There is also a significant wage premium attached to obtaining a higher education. Korea’s labor market is highly segmented along educational background and college graduates earn up to 2.5 times more than their colleagues with a junior high school degree.
Hey Vic – Expanding into SK maybe because in the US lying archbishops have become a ......
St. Louis Archbishop denies knowing that child r-ape is a crime
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/.../st-louis-arc...
Why Evolution is True
Jun 13, 2014 – One thing's for sure: Archbishop Carlson is lying not for Jesus, but to ... a public nuisance by keeping information on abusive priests secret, ...
Ah the dinosaur soft tissue on a triceratops horn.
This was found by Mark H. Armitage, who was an Adjunct Professor of Biology at Azusa Pacific University, a religious college, and received a “Masters Degree” from the regionally unaccredited Inst.itute for Creation Research. Currently Armitage is affiliated with the Creation Research Society.
Several of his "scientific" paper are dubious at best – they get published in Creationist journals like the Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism – not scientific journals. Some of them just don't contain any actual data or results.
As for this latest publication, "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus", once you read the paper it turns out that the "soft tissue" isn't really soft at all.
The "soft tissue" is only evident after digging deep into the bone and de-mineralizing it. After some serious processing and de-mineralization, once you look at the carboniferous material under a microscope it kind of resembles cells that line blood vessels.
Furthermore, the journal he chose for publishing his paper is an internet only, pay per view site with a reputation for publishing anything at all for a fee – not one where actual paleontologists (or any other actual scientists) go for peer review.
"I am surprised there hasn't been a Blog post on Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle"
------------------------------
Pastor scandal of the week. It's not a big deal, they're dime a dozen.
He belongs to the "hateful Christians" that @workingcopy is in such denial over.
'Bishop William McNaughton, who served as the first bishop of Inchon from 1962 until 2002, recalled that when he arrived in the country, most of his congregation was poor. Now, he says, they wealthier than average.'
– the Lord has truly blessed the church in South Korea. Those predicting the demise of Christianity have something gnawing in their craw right about now.
That is true of South Koreans as a whole, not just Christians.
South Korea's real gross domestic product went from $2.7 billion in 1962 to more than a trillion US dollars in 2007.
In the mid 20th century, over half of the Korean population was in absolute poverty. By the mid-1990s, that number was 3.4 percent. Today the absolute poverty rate is around 8% – which is better than America's.
This was due largely to a shift in economic focus towards industrialization and an export-oriented development strategy coupled with a conservative monetary policy and tight fiscal measures.
Thanks for the insightful survey but the point of the article is the growth of the Catholic church in South Korea. As you know the Catholics have had a mission in Korea for quite some time now but has only experienced exponential growth in the past few years.
"when he arrived in the country, most of his congregation was poor. Now, he says, they wealthier than average.'
– the Lord has truly blessed the church in South Korea."
The snippet you quoted and your subsequent statement implies a causal link between church attendance and wealth increase.
Scotty is fundamentally dishonest.
a perfect reason to keep religion out of south korea. couldn't post the articule so here is the CNN link to it's own article.
LINK:http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/15/pastor-wife-accused-of-killing-possessed-children/comment-page-5/
Hey Atheists,
What do you expect will happen to humanity? Like, what are you aiming for in living your life? What would be the best case scenario for our species?
Ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both are atheists.
Just sent them both a snapchat. I will let you know when they respond.
So if your God is the creator and there is some form of eternal life after death, then what is the point exactly? There is nothing to learn or discover or invent or do once you get that eternal reward, so is that the point? To float about doing nothing for eternity?
nbha,
eternal life is for now, not just for after you die. And he who believes in (has faith in, clings to, relies on) the Son has (now possesses) eternal life.
Eternal life is knowing God well, it's having an intimate knowledge of and relationship with Him. Sin was a barrier to this relationship, Jesus died to forgive your sins and removed this barrier so you may have eternal life – And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
So I take it you can't answer my question then? What is the point, what is our purpose after we die? If we have some eternal soul, what is the purpose of it? And I mean something more than "Knowing God" as an answer because that isn't an answer at all. So what then? According to most Christians you die, get judged and either spend an eternity being tortured or spend an eternity in Gods pressence doing absolutely nothing because you made it, no further action required, no more chance to sin, no more chance to explore and learn about this immense universe because you already know it all because you are buds with the guy who created it and nothing exists outside of him, so whats the point then? To just become Gods extra throw pillows?
I have often heard the religious say "Life must be pointless for an atheist" without ever explaining what their own supposed purpose is other than serving their brand of deity, which isn't actually a purpose I would be proud of. It effectively says "I have purpose because I believe I am a slave to the master, you have no purpose because you do not believe in my master..."
My purpose as a human is one of species survival while enjoying, exploring and learning about the universe I find myself in. Is that not enough? Do I also "need" the promise of an eternal supernatural existence to find purpose? That seems silly at best and extremely greedy and full of hubris at worst.
Hey NBHA,
As a Christian, I believe that our purpose is to be in fellowship with our creator and to be in constant connection with Him. In Heaven, that purpose is fulfilled in its entirety. As Christians, our purpose is to align our goals and wills with God's purpose. That is where we find fulfillment. Our goal in life is to become perfected through Christ and to perform the will of the Father. When we get to Heaven, we will be operating perfectly as God had intended us to. That is our life goal (well, mine at least).
Like 99% of every other species to have ever existed, we'll eventually go extinct.
The best we can do is live the best lives possible, doing good along the way, not using belief to determine who is more deserving and hope we leave the planet in the best condition possible for the next generations. To live in peace we need to learn to mutually respect each other regardless of what god one believes in or doesn't. Empathy is a human trait, not a believer trait...in fact some of the people who lack the most empathy are believers-they'd rather put their holy books words before the equality of all man.
If we are just going to go extinct, then what's the point? It's like, we are trying to advance and make our species the best it can be only to have it be destroyed. Imagine if you put all this effort into writing a a massive thesis that proves that God does not exist, then after you finish this airtight proof, you burn the paper and then die. If we are just marching toward extinction, it takes a lot of the motivation out of improving things.
I have a watch that ran out of batteries a while back, but the watch was on its way out anyway. It was no longer keeping good time, and the cost to fix the watch was more than the cost of a new watch. It would have lasted a few more months if I replaced the battery. I didn't replace the battery of the watch. It wasn't worth it because I knew that investing in the watch would not change the fact that it was going to break in a month or two. If Humanity is on its way out, then our investment in it is going to yield very poor returns.
I guess it just puts a damper on things in my opinion. If you are being rational about things, you should be only putting enough energy and effort into humanity in order to make it comfortably to the end. Doesn't really make sense to try to be great or exceptional if it is going to take too much effort. It is like planning for your death if you have no one to leave your money to when you die. You would want to make enough money to last you until you die, but any extra effort you put into making more money than that is going to go to waste after you die.
I don't really know what to say other than I am sorry you feel that way.
joey: Thank you...that was my thought also.
You sound pessimistic; if this is your view, not even belief in God is going to help you.
I don't know what you're trying to say here, Guidans. You sound depressed, quite frankly, and I do not mean that unkindly.
Wishing for eternal life does not make eternal life a real option. I find great joy in what I have now, and great purpose in trying to make this world a better a better place for future generations. It seems foolish to me that anyone would squander the one life they do get concentrating on a make-believe afterlife.
Tallulah: Absolutely. It's liberating.
Hey all,
I don't feel that way. I believe in the Christian God and not in your extinction philosophy. I am explaining that, if I were to adopt your philosophy, I would feel that way. So I don't feel the way that I would expect you to all feel were you not deceiving yourselves by inventing false meaning in your lives.
"... by inventing false meaning in your lives."
Nope, nothing arrogant or condescending about that statement. Eye roll...
Let me preface this by saying I am not an atheist.
That said, what you are imputing is what you think atheists feel, and as a person who loves and knows the atheists in my life, you are wrong.
Of one feels their life has no meaning unless one is a Christian, one is erroneous on that belief, and in no way represents anyone's view except their own.
In other words, speak for yourself, because you own that view.
I am glad you're not depressed.
Slight edit:
If one thinks anyone's life has no meaning unless they're Christian [...]
One can only judge their own life. Not another's.
Hey LaBella,
I am completely depressed in the most literal sense of the word. It is pretty well-handled though with good amount of Welbutrin and Lexapro. Please, to anyone reading this, do not attribute my depression to my faith or argue that clearly, Christianity has let me down because I am still depressed. I was diagnosed with depression a good 3 years before becoming a Christian. And Christianity has definitely helped with my depression, but it has not cured it. The Bible doesn't teach that you live a perfect life after you convert to Christianity. You still have to deal with junk. But it does give you hope for the future and I don't believe that that hope exists in an Atheistic world view.
My point regarding Atheism and meaning is that, without an objective truth, there is no objective meaning. Objective meaning would require a universal truth to exist that we, as subjects, could relate to. Math is a good example of an objective truth. You and I can be wrong about math. If I say that 4 x 4 is 12, then I am wrong. If math were not objective, but was dependent upon circ,umstances or people, then I might be correct when I say 4×4 is 12.
When you say that meaning is subjective, you are arguing that meaning is dependent upon the person who is defining that meaning. So, something meaningful to someone may be meaningless to someone else (just a thought about that, If you guys are arguing that meaning is subjective, then shouldn't you expect me to hold a different view of your meaningful lives because I am a different subject? Back to the rant). When I say that I feel you are inventing meaning in your lives, I am correct if you are arguing for a subjective meaning. When meaning is subjective than all meaning is both infinitely valuable and infinitely worthless depending on who is the subject of that meaning.
Without God, I feel that there is no objective meaning in the world because there is no one to establish that objective truth. Without objective truth, all meaning becomes subjective, and from my subjective point of view, subjective meaning is meaningless.
And Midwest, I am sorry for being condescending. That was rude of me. I still believe that subjective meaning is false meaning, but I should have been less flippant about it.
Guidans,
I am glad your depression is being controlled. Of course depression has nothing to do with belief or lack of it; any suggestions to the contrary I find wholly absurd.
I do, however, feel you are overthinking your analysis about how an atheist thinks, based on your own experiences as an atheist. (If I understood you correctly)
Life may have meaningless for you; as that cliche goes, your mileage may vary.
I can tell you that the atheists in my life have had no such experiences; the only thing I can tell you is that their lives are full and meaningful. They just don't believe in any gods. That's it.
I love them dearly; I'd love them whether or not they suddenly had an epiphany and started to believe tomorrow.
I think it's unwise to tell another how they think or what they find meaningful. It is always contingent on one's own interpretation, and doesn't reflect the actuality of the person they're trying to understand. (If that's indeed what you are attempting, of course.)
There isn't a one-size-fits-all description of an atheist outside of one thing: they don't believe in any gods.
Hey LaBella,
I appreciate the positive notes. I would like to clarify that, in my posts, I am not trying to argue that atheists feel their lives are meaningless or that they have no hope. I also know and love numerous atheists and understand that they are very deep and hopeful people.
What I am trying to say in my posts is that I do not see the meaningfulness in an atheistic life that the atheists see. From my perspective, a life without an absolute power to set objective truths is a life without meaning or hope. I understand that atheists, apart from those in the nihilist-atheist camp, would generally disagree with that statement, but I tend to think that those folks are missing a key understanding that subjective meaning is meaningless.
I am personally, very opposed to the idea of subjectivity. I feel that objective truths exist and that people are either in alignment with those truths or out of alignment. The concept of subjectivity arises, in my opinion, out of va.gue concepts and incompletely-formed questions. For example, most would say that taste is subjective. If I asked 10 people how spaghetti tastes, I would probably get 10 answers. Because of that, we tend to say that the taste of spaghetti is subjective. In reality however, the taste of spaghetti is objective. Its chemical components do not change and the chemical components' ability to trigger different taste buds to stimulate taste is the same regardless of the subject. Now, different subjects experience the taste of spaghetti differently, but their experience does not change the chemical make up of spaghetti. People, as subjects, can stand in relationship to objective truths, but the truths themselves do not change.
When people argue for subjective truth, I feel they are arguing against truth entirely. If something is subjective, then its truth is wholly dependent upon the subject perceiving that truth. If that is the case, then all discussion of opinions is made moot because every opinion is equally valid.
In fact, this discussion that we are having right now is completely invalid if there is no objective truth in the world. You hold one opinion about the meaningfulness of life within the world-view of atheism, and I hold a separate opinion. Both are equally valid and neither one of us should have anything to say regarding the accuracy of the other one's belief.
The only way discussions of truth are valid is if a truth actually exists. Only then, can beliefs about that truth be more or less accurate than other beliefs.
In my posts, I am saying that, without God (or at least some absolute power to set objective truths), then there can be no debate over meaning because everyone's beliefs about anything are equally valid. To me, that equates to saying that everything is meaningless.
The best possible scenario for humans is to figure out a way to do deep space travel so that once we have destroyed the planet we can move on to another planet. Otherwise humans will eventually go extinct.
Even if we make it to a new planet, we are still going to go extinct, right? Just a little while later...
Only if the universe itself goes extinct, or we are not able to find other suitable locations, then maybe, but maybe not. No one can see the future.
I have been told that protons have a half-life of like 1.29 x 10^34 years. So, even if we make it to immortality, our matter would decay at some point.
you watch too much televison and need a better grip on reality.
Coming from you I will consider that a compliment.
So what's the reality?
Is it that your imaginary friend jesus is going to return and save our sorry butts?? I pity you for believing such tripe...you truly are a blemish on humanity and completely contribute to the issues we face-you hinder our progress.
On the contrary, we will inherit the earth and the evil and filth that deny Him will be wiped from the face of the earth.
@Scot
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."
– Matthew 5:5
Of all the adjectives I'd use to describe you, "meek" is not one of them.
scot
Why do you think you are the meek?
The plants...they are meek, fungi, molds...the first life...If man destroys all, or a major cataclysm wipes out all...those may be the only things to survive.
What is more meek than that?
meek: quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive.
Such is your interpretation of it scot. Can we get other Christians to weigh in with their own interpretations?
guidedans,
I am an optimist regarding the future, so I don't think my imagination is good enough to predict how wonderful our future is. Here's a weak attempt:
Humans will advance science such that:
1. we will master our genome, eliminating genetic diseases, cancer, etc. life spans will initially be in hundreds of years, then even more.
2. we will integrate technology with our biology, enabling us to add computation and communication direct from our brains. This will bring us telepathy and telekinesis. Quantum security and computing will allow this. This will also keep us ahead of intelligent machines.
Humans will also advance socially and morally. We will develop smart algorithms and combine our much more mature intellects (using the extended life span and integrated technologies discussed above) to foresee negative consequences for our actions avoiding many more mistakes. We will still make mistakes, but like in the past, we will rise above them and advance. As an example, we will develop technology to clean our planet and sustain it.
This is all in next 200 years. This acceleration of our species knowledge and intellect will enable us to find practical ways to explore the rest of the accessible universe. We will make contact with other life, other intelligent life, and share knowledge and community.
It'll be a long time before our sun goes Red Giant, so who knows how far we will have travelled.
Go right ahead and place all your hopes in mankind, you live in a dreamworld.
That from a serial liar and libelist. Your morality is in the gutter, and your understanding of science is on par with Paris Hilton.
You don't matter.
As opposed to your reality-based dependence on an invisible, undetectable super hero who might save you as one of its chosen ones. Right!
mankind is all we can be sure of, so better put your bets there than on stuff that has no evidence to support it...you live each day waiting to die because for you this life isn't good enough and the next one you think exists apparently is, yet you have no idea if even you are good enough for that place called heaven that you believe exists; we live our daily lives hoping we have done everything within our powers to leave this planet a better place and that when our bodies breathe their finals breaths, we will have left good memories....the impact I have in the here and now matters greatly.
@TP
You're funny. I actually lead a quite happy life and have no fear of death. My future is secure and my hope intact. Conversely you and your atheist friends have absolutely no hope at all. A self-fulfilling prophesy are you and your fellow atheists, so by all means make the most of the only life you will ever know.
"Go right ahead and place all your hopes in mankind, you live in a dreamworld."
I'm pretty sure those putting their hopes in ghosts and spirits are the ones living in the dreamworld. Mankind is a reality that has a track record of being confronted by difficulties in survival and has met those challenges and continues to progress despite the nay sayers. Ghosts and spirits have zero track record unless you want to count the nightvision camera work of snot nosed morons walking around an old factory at night and hearing noises. There has been zero credible evidence of anything supernatural, ever, so why would we put all our hopes for survival as a species on the supernatural while we burry our heads in the sand? That's not just living in a dreamworld, it's actively putting humanity at risk of extinction through inaction.
oh scot, you're such an ass! You have no idea how hopeful I am and I do it all without imaginary friends!
Mankind is a reality that has a track record of being confronted by difficulties in survival and has met those challenges and continues to progress despite the nay sayers
– who are you kidding, it's amazing we haven't driven ourselves to extinction already. We've taken great strides in making a sewer out of the ocean, indiscriminately killing fish, mammals, coral, and plant life; we've polluted and depleted a majority of the world's freshwater supply, we've polluted the air we breath and nearly depleted the ozone layer; we've killed millions and millions of our own species with conventional and weapons of mass destruction; we've created super bugs with antibiotics; we've become morally diseased to the point where we think it right to discard our unborn in garbage dumpsters; and you call this "progress"? Sick and delusional.
awanderingscot,
Other than war, which was frequently sanctioned in the Bible, the Bible didn't say ONE THING about any of the others or warn us about them.
So much for any "prophecy" or guidance about them from the Bible. Sounds like a huge FAILURE.
You are so right scot,
I guess there is nothing left fo rus to do except quote scientists from 100 years ago and apply those words to moden science. Should we take Ben Franklin's ideas about electricity while we are at it and disprove the reliability of toasters?
@Observer
"So much for any "prophecy" or guidance about them from the Bible. Sounds like a huge FAILURE."
– The failure is in the refusal of people just like you who refuse to accept accountability for their actions and want to blame everyone else including God for their failures. The reason atheists deny God is in their refusal to be accountable to Him and not that they are so stupid as to not believe just because they can't see Him, that He simply doesn't exist. Quite frankly they are still children who have never grown up.
"who are you kidding, it's amazing we haven't driven ourselves to extinction already."
There were people just as ignorant as yourself two thousand years ago claiming the same thing "The end is nigh! It can't get any worse than this! Woe to Mankind!"
At that time the global population was about 300 million. Now we have over 7 billion humans. All that really means is there are additional morons like scot here standing on the new street corners of technology shouting the same things "The end is nigh! It can't get any worse than this! Woe to Mankind!" while avoiding doing anything to help fix the actual problems we do face.
a wondering slvt.
" The reason atheists deny God is in their refusal to be accountable to Him and not that they are so stupid as to not believe just because they can't see Him, that He simply doesn't"
False. You have once again born false witness against me...you make your god so proud.
awanderingscot
Speaking of those "who refuse to accept accountability for their actions" and "children who have never grown up", please tell us again how Jesus died for YOUR SINS so that you don't have to take responsibility and punishment for them.
OOOOPS.
@Scot
When it comes to wreaking environmental havok, Christians are some of the worst offenders.
"“Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the seas, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on this earth.”
This passage from Genesis is being used to justify overpopulation and overconsumption.
The Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship is Christian organization founded by radio evangelist James Dobson, dispensationalist Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, Jerry Falwell, and Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest.
They teach that the bit from Genesis I mention proves that “man” is superior to nature and that everything is here for us to use. And don't worry about limited resources becuase God is infinite!
To wit:
“The secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a pie … that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece. However, the Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God’s Earth."
– America’s Providential History, Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell
Combine that with the huge numbers of Evangelicals who believe that convervation is a wasted effort becuase we're in "The End Times" and you've a sizeable chunk of the American Christian population that doesn't give a flying fig about environmentalism. Some go so far as to want to make things worse so that they can hasten armageddon and get themselves Raptured already....
The failure is in the refusal of people just like you who refuse to accept accountability for their actions
That is funny because as best as I can tell Christianity is all about avoiding personal accountability and letting Jesus be held accountable for all of your sins.
@Joey
"That is funny because as best as I can tell Christianity is all about avoiding personal accountability and letting Jesus be held accountable for all of your sins.
– well sir, your best isn't good enough and you really haven't a clue about Christianity. Christians are still accountable to Christ and especially more so after they become believers and are born again.
@DOC
"When it comes to wreaking environmental havoc, Christians are some of the worst offenders."
"“Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the seas, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on this earth.”
This passage from Genesis is being used to justify overpopulation and overconsumption.
>>> well good for you DOC, you found Genesis. Unfortunately for you, you once again display your total spiritual inept-itude and lack of understanding
>>>That is not at all what the passage is saying and if you had bothered to read just a few verses up you might not have posted such this.
>>> ‘And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”- Genesis 1:22, NKJV
>>> Here God is blessing His creation, all of the creatures he had created thus far. So I would ask you, do "filling the waters in the seas” and “birds multiply on the earth" signify "wreaking environmental havoc"? And would He have bothered to bless them if he then wanted man to destroy them and their habitat? This is yet more of the illogical thinking I’ve come to expect from you.
“They teach that the bit from Genesis I mention proves that “man” is superior to nature and that everything is here for us to use.
>>> Man is God’s crowning achievement here on earth and thus IS superior IN nature, this is indisputable
“And don't worry about limited resources because God is infinite!”
>>> This is highly subjective and has no basis in fact. There are some people who say the moon is made of cheese but that does not mean a majority of Christian denominations teach this.
Combine that with the huge numbers of Evangelicals who believe that conservation is a wasted effort because we're in "The End Times" and you've a sizeable chunk of the American Christian population that doesn't give a flying fig about environmentalism. Some go so far as to want to make things worse so that they can hasten Armageddon and get themselves Raptured already....Armageddon and get themselves Raptured already....
>>> Please don’t refer to Jehovah’s Witness’ when you refer to Christians, it’s not fair to Christians.
Hey Boston,
I think your idea is the most "happy" scenario that humanity could hope for. It is very close to what I would imagine being the best case scenario for the species. When I think about it though, I get pretty saddened by the fact that that is really all we could hope for as a species. We just advance until the point where we become a super-organism, connected to one another through a neural-net, that is capable of doing anything imaginable. Like, what would we do with that power? just patrol the universe exploring and finding new things out? What happens when we find out everything there is to learn?
I feel like, even in the best case scenario, we end up achieving everything we ever wanted and then realizing that there is nothing more to do. Thinking about the end-game, I cannot think of an end that is very charming for the species.
We will survive until we die. Then some other life form (should any life form survive humanity) will take over as dominant species on this planet. Perhaps we will eventually develop some form of space travel and find new worlds to colonize. Maybe not. But one thing is for certain: There isn't a single shred of evidence to show that "life after death" is anything more than wishful thinking.
Tallulah,
You are misusing the word "evidence." Eye-witness testimony is considered evidence and numerous folks report near-death experiences. You are just rejecting that evidence as irrelevant for some reason.
There is loads of evidence for many spiritual things in the world, you are just discounting that evidence because you feel you can explain it away.
You can say that the evidence that Christians and non-Christians present is inconclusive or is not adequate to prove their arguments, but you should not be saying that there is not even a shred of evidence for our beliefs.
I don't get it. Even if all South Koreans became Catholic, why would that make it the Church of the future?
Maybe it's
6. Low rate of pedophilia in SK.
The Hello Kitty themed Eucharist.
Isn't Hello Kitty a Japanese thing? I haven't been to Korea since 1993.
Unlike those who have responded so far, I am going to assume that your question is a serious one. I think that it is because it is the most active and serves as what may become the model for churches in other parts of the world. This applies not only to Catholic churches there, but also to protestant churches. Much of Asia, just as the west is rejecting Christianity in favor of Humanistic philosophies, is becoming excited about Jesus' message. At least that is what I am hearing from people who have been there.
These are the commandments I live by...are they so bad? Not one demands idolatry as the biblical one of "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" does.
TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR A GLOBAL HUMANISM
(Dr. Rodrigue TREMBLAY)
1- Proclaim the natural dignity and inherent worth of all human being
2- Respect the life and property of others.
3- Practice tolerance and open-mindedness towards the choices and life styles of others.
4- Share with those who are less fortunate and mutually assist those who are in need of help.
5- Use neither lies, nor spiritual doctrine, nor temporal power to dominate and exploit others.
6- Rely on reason, logic and science to understand the Universe and to solve life's problems.
7- Conserve and improve the Earth's natural environment—land, soil, water, air and space—as humankind's common heritage.
8- Resolve differences and conflicts cooperatively without resorting to violence or to wars.
9- Organize public affairs according to individual freedom and responsibility, through political and economic democracy.
10- Develop one's intelligence and talents through education and effort.
Indeed, those who truly love the Lord do prefer the bread from heaven as opposed to the empty and non-nourishing religion of humanism.
My Mom's church just got a Korean priest, and the congregation likes him. So as long as they are growing the church it is a good thing for the folks that are Catholic.
I think there is a word missing in the third to last paragraph.
Proof-reading optional I guess.
Reblogged this on Yeliz and commented:
WoW
Time to release the fury of Twitter and Facebook: There was and never will be an Easter.
부활절하게 될 것이다 있었다과 : 시간은 트위터와 페이스 북의 분노를 풀어 없습니다 !!
"There was and never will be an Easter."
----------------–
I presume you mean there never was and never will be an Easter. Which is demonstrably inaccurate since it happens every year.
I presume that what you really mean is that there was never a resurrection.
난 당신이 거기 결코 부활절 수 없습니다 결코 의미 추정. 어떤이 매년 발생하기 때문에 명백히 잘못된 것입니다.
나는 당신이 정말로 의미하는 것은 부활이 없었다는 것을 가정한다.
Oops, sorry about that. Helping out with our new twin grandkids and I got a bit distracted. Indeed, there never was and never will be an Easter !!
Congratulations on your twin grandchildren.
Danke Schoen !!
Is this another case of priests heading to places where there will be a lot of children?
It would be far more entertaining if Pope-A-Dope visited North Korea.
Has Pope-A-Dope made all the RCC's records on priestly pedophiles and their protectors available to civilian authorities? Nope! Who is he protecting? Himself?
"Five ways South Korea might be the church of the future"
------------–
The Catholic Church presumably.
I've seen a lot of Korean Baptist churches in the US.
"In 2005, nearly half the population describe themselves are “irreligious.” The region has a rich religious history, but today South Korea is among the most secular countries in the world."
------------------------
I really wonder why that is?
My guess? That same as the west. They feel they don't need God because they are very wealthy.
We don't need god because he is useless.
Wealthy goes hand in hand with Christianity.
Cheese, You make my point. When people are wealthy they are secure and independent. God, they think, becomes useless. I am not saying either that God is only for the poor or that the wealthy cannot be Christian. But there is a tendency to dismiss God when a wealthy person feels secure.
"They feel they don't need God because they are very wealthy."
No , they don't need god, in the same way we don't need the tooth fairy. We need reality, not imagined "gods".
Igaftr, You and I disagree lot, don't we?
yes ragan, we do.
That will tend to happen when one believes in things that no one can show to be anything but imaginary, yet does not comprehend how totally illogical that is.
I see all religions are based on the same thing. Ignorance of what truly is, and imagining what is rather than accepting that we do not know.
ragan,
" But there is a tendency to dismiss God when a wealthy person feels secure."
They feel less at the mercy of capricious fate and therefore realize that they do not need superstition or divine intervention to ease their plight.
igaftr, Oh well! Such is life.I have no problem understanding the material/energy world. I think it you who has a problem with the spiritual. But that's just me.
I am not wealthy and do not need any gods, not even just one.