You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I think I said that Enlightenment thinkers got the idea from Jesus promoting them. I don't know where Jesus got them from but I don't think it matters here. In any case, that's my point. The secular society we live in today has drawn its ideas from Christianity, which may have drawn them from elsewhere I have no idea. Christianity clearly has a role because I don't think Rousseau or Locke were ancient Babylonian scholars, were they?
People had been reading the bible for hundreds of years and yet these ideas never emerged in all that time. Were they written in a particularly cryptic code that was only deciphered in the 1700s?
The trigger for the Enlightenment was that people started reading everything they could get their hands on. It was putting their bibles down and picking up other books and ideas.
The Enlightenment was people finally moving away from the Church. Anyone who is trying to argue otherwise is really grasping at straws, and why they are doing that I really have no idea.
A very small selection of countries there in the OECD report Politecamera action, that the countries actually compile stats suggests Christian morals in those societies...when it comes to forced marriage there's a governement web page and you only have to read through to see which communities its aimed at:
https://arretonslesviolences.gouv.fr/besoin-d-aide/mariage-force
I am enjoying the suggestion that Israel and Turkey have Christian values because the governments compile statistics on violence against women. Equally the suggestion that a French government website about forced marriage is evidence of non-Christian countries having greater acceptance of violence against women.
All in all, it's a great attempt to shift goalposts!
All in all, it's a great attempt to shift goalposts!
You're treating this as some kind of fight? I wish you wouldn't. TJ asked how come modern secular values could come from a religion - we suggested how that could happen.
The Enlightenment was people finally moving away from the Church. Anyone who is trying to argue otherwise is really grasping at straws, and why they are doing that I really have no idea.
No, the enlightenment was about individual thought. For some, that led to a move away from the church, for others it meant setting up their own church to do things how they wanted. And still others reaffirmed their existing affiliation. The point is that it is now your choice, not someone else's.
People had been reading the bible for hundreds of years and yet these ideas never emerged in all that time.
I think that the understanding of Christian teachings has been evolving since the beginning and it is reflected by the events of the societies involved. Clearly over time learning accumulates, ideas are discussed and they stay discussed. Eventually, these ideas evolve thanks to the contributions from all sides, both religious and secular. It's not like the Bible is a single book with answers in it that you just have to read to obtain. It's not like that at all.
No, the enlightenment was about individual thought. For some, that led to a move away from the church, for others it meant setting up their own church to do things how they wanted. And still others reaffirmed their existing affiliation. The point is that it is now your choice, not someone else's.
See, when you say all that, I'm sure it makes sense in your head and you're not just desperately grasping for straws as your argument is systematically dismantled, but all I can think of when you try to defend the Church during the Enlightenment is this:
The 'someone else' you mention is the Church. People now have freedom to not choose the Church. The Church didn't allow them to choose before.
This is like the definition of creating a problem and then demanding congratulations when you 'fix' the problem you created. Only they didn't even do that, other people forced them to.
I think that the understanding of Christian teachings has been evolving since the beginning and it is reflected by the events of the societies involved. Clearly over time learning accumulates, ideas are discussed and they stay discussed. Eventually, these ideas evolve thanks to the contributions from all sides, both religious and secular.
It certainly helps when you can discuss things without getting hanged or burned alive. Shame it took so many centuries for that message to filter through.
I'm not sure how much learning and discussion you can attribute to that 1000 or so year period.
It's not like the Bible is a single book with answers in it that you just have to read to obtain. It's not like that at all.
On that we agree.
you try to defend the Church during the Enlightenment
That's not even what I am doing. You are really enjoying some sort of bunfight (which is itself rather unpleasant) but it's one you've made up. A question was asked, I responded. You on the other hand are being a right cock. I haven't seen a reasoned or thoughtful contribution, just aggression. What I would have liked to see is something like this:
"That's an interesting argument but I really don't agree. I really don't think that you can draw a direct line between Jesus and the enlightenment because of X. In fact, Y said Z which really doesn't benefit your argument" and I would have gone "oh yeah interesting I didn't know that". But instead you're just throwing vitriol which honestly is making me feel pretty miserable.
I think that the teachings of Jesus are separate from the Catholic Church. Clearly the latter was highly repressive. But like I say, educated people were able to read the Bible themselves. The Reformation had happened, the Bible had been translated in to many languages and been reproduced widely thanks to the invention of the printing press. It seems likely to me that those things shifted the debate and prompted people to revisit what Jesus (allegedly) said as distinct from what the Church was teaching. Do you disagree?
I find this fascinating. I did a quick search about Rousseau since I've heard a bit about him and this article calls him a deist and does not mention Jesus.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/jean-jacques-rousseau-atheism-deism
You on the other hand are being a right cock.
Shlama 'ahlaykhu, as Jesus would say.
You on the other hand are being a right cock.
Well, in that case I'm happy enough to leave you and Meloni and Orban and Le Pen to discuss 'Christian values' and how the western world came from Christianity amongst yourselves. I'm sure you'll have a lovely time.
OK, I wrote the above and then deleted it. Then I put it back because I think it probably sums up why I get annoyed as soon as I hear the words 'Christian values' used as a synonym for Western society*. Or even used as a loose assosciation.
I've been in Italy for a few months and, **** me, it is terrifying just how much the Christian values shite cuts through.
It's easy to forget that other cultures have had their own periods of Enlightenment type progress and then their own dark ages. While Christian countries were having their dark ages the Arab world was using reason and science as the basis for its culture (but again that's probably an oversimplification). We progress and we regress as a culture. And as individuals.
I didn't mean to make you feel miserable. Sorry about that.
*By the way, I have a theory that the US only went through a partial Enlightenment. They read John Locke and nothing else and that is why the US is the way it, is but that's a story for another day.
It seems likely to me that those things shifted the debate and prompted people to revisit what Jesus (allegedly) said as distinct from what the Church was teaching. Do you disagree?
Just to be clear, I did mention it earlier but the Church in Scotland brought universal literacy to the country so that everyone could read the bible.
And the Church throughout the middle ages was almost entirely responsible for preserving and translating almost all the historic documents we have access to today.
Had they known it would lead to the Enlightenment, perhaps they would have acted differently. Or maybe not.
Regardless, we owe some gratitude to the Church. But I'm still never going to say that current Western values 'came from' Christianity 🙂
All in all, it's a great attempt to shift goalposts!
You're treating this as some kind of fight?
No, I'm treating it as a discussion in which people put forward, test and defend intellectual propositions on the basis of reasoned argument and demonstrable facts.
Perhaps that's why it's disappointing when people propound profound and perfidious piffle (like "a French government website that targets certain ethnic groups in France proves that non-Christian societies have higher tolerance of violence against women") or start saying things like:
You on the other hand are being a right cock.
Why don't we all step away from the keyboard have a nice cup of tea?
It seems likely to me that those things shifted the debate and prompted people to revisit what Jesus (allegedly) said as distinct from what the Church was teaching.
That seems to be a tad of a leap of faith, so to speak, and somewhat at odds with Nickc's attempts to reference the medieval philosophers several of whom were pillars of the Catholic church.
It also doesnt work with your previous claims such as "Since mediaeval times everyone in Europe has been taught that they are all equal before God.". So what was it since medieval times or since the reformation when educated people got to read more?
It also doesnt work well since probably the peak of the divine right of kings was post the reformation (incidentally Luther's "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants" wasnt exactly in favour of all being equal).
It also doesnt work well since probably the peak of the divine right of kings was post the reformation (incidentally Luther's "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants" wasnt exactly in favour of all being equal).
Perhaps that was something that prompted a re-evaluation that led to more enlightenment? Or was the re-assertion of the divine right of kings a response to people getting ideas above their stations?
"No, I'm treating it as a discussion in which people put forward, test and defend intellectual propositions on the basis of reasoned argument and demonstrable facts."
When Augustine of Hippo hasn't been discussed, who lived at the end of the 4th century and beginnig of the fifth, the discussion hasn't reached Ladybird level.
Anyway, the good news is Church attendances are up, especially among the young. Alleluia!
Anyway, the good news is Church attendances are up, especially among the young. Alleluia!
Yeah, although that could be down to Peterson and Tate. Which I would argue is not a good thing.
Or was the re-assertion of the divine right of kings a response to people getting ideas above their stations?
re-assertion? Also define station.
As ever and always problematic for those claiming the guiding hand of Christianity there are different reasons in different countries.
The primary point though is your claim about a)it being a feature of China and not Europe and b)something which decreased post reformation is simply wrong.
Guardians columnists say what they need to for clicks, don't waste your time with them.
When Augustine of Hippo hasn't been discussed
Not someone arguing for Christianity being the source of morality in the West would really want to use though. His background is a good example of how Christianity was heavily influenced by the various other religions, not just Judaism, and the Greek philosphers.
Anyway, the good news is Church attendances are up, especially among the young. Alleluia!
Lets see what the Church attendance figures show. The bible studies YouGov surveys suggest a rather startling increase in numbers which I cant help think would have been noticed and commented on by the churches.
Guardians columnists say what they need to for clicks, don't waste your time with them.
OK, where should we get our news and analysis about the increase in Church attendances?
Church Times obviously
When Augustine of Hippo hasn't been discussed, who lived at the end of the 4th century and beginnig of the fifth, the discussion hasn't reached Ladybird level.
Are you going to contribute or just throw shade?
Not someone arguing for Christianity being the source of morality in the West would really want to use though.
Well that's not what I am arguing, not in the least. What are you like?
I'm saying that you can show the influence of Jesus' teachings (not Christianity, they're not the same thing! Nor is Christianity equivalent to 'The Church' which in this context is probably the Catholic Church.) to Enlightenment thought.
The primary point though is your claim about a)it being a feature of China and not Europe
You what? My claim? I've made no such claim, you people have absolutely shocking reading comprehension. The divine right of kings was a huge part of European history, otherwise why would people have to reject it? FFS
Not someone arguing for Christianity being the source of morality in the West would really want to use though. His background is a good example of how Christianity was heavily influenced by the various other religions, not just Judaism, and the Greek philosphers.
Every educated person would be influenced by Greek philosophers and that held for centuries, however his views on sin, grace, freedom and sexuality were a radical deprture from the ancient philosophical and cultural tradition and were highly controversial at the time. Christianity was the game changer that caused this departure.
Is this the chritianity that insists we must suffer before death to atone for our sins? That insists condom use to prevent aids is unacceptable? That treats women and LGBTQ folk as lessor beings? Thatbelieves the pope is infallible? That coveted up and facilitated child abuse? That has been used as a justufication for war. That finds it acceptable to lie if you are doing gods work? That is usex as a tool toco trol people?
Etc etc
That wants to impose this " morality" on the secular
I find christianity to be amoral and abhorent
Different creeds have very diffent moral codes anyway. Some less amoral than others
Church Times
OK, I read one of your Church Times articles here:
Still none the wiser as to why it's happening.
Going on Reddit it does seem that Petersen and Tate are the main drivers:
Do a ctrl-f to see how many direct references are made and have a look at the rest of the replies to see how many indirect references are made.
Maybe The Guardian isn't as full of shit as you'd like.
I think that the understanding of Christian teachings has been evolving since the beginning and it is reflected by the events of the societies involved.
Al.ostvas if its a load of made up nonsense being twisted to suit your argument
Its either the absolute word of god or its meaningless
Wow, going down some Catholic message board rabbit holes.
I didn't realise how much practicing Catholics hated the recently deceased Pope.
Religion probably partly explains why humans society has thrived and existed as long as it has.
Depends on how you’re defining ‘religion’ - are you using (relatively) recent monotheistic practices, or much more ancient polytheistic practices.
For example, Australian indigenous peoples have stories of the ‘Dreamtime’, which refers to a cataclysmic event that has been corroborated by modern scientists as having happened 45,000 years ago, and which includes what they consider to be deities, or at least creators of things they saw, and see around them.
North American indigenous peoples have multiple deities that are referred to in their stories about the creation of the world, that are pretty consistent across approximately 350 different tribes with different origins and languages, their origins as inhabitants of the continent date back roughly 35,000 years. That corresponds to the last ice age in Europe and the U.K., and the disappearance of the last of the Neanderthals at least from what is now Britain. I’ll bet they had stories about how their world was created,
and Tate are the main drivers:
Andrew Tate claims to have converted to Islam in 2022 so I don't see how he could have influenced an increase in church attendance.
Jordan Petersen as far as I am aware is not deeply religious so I cant imagine that he has had any significant effect on church attendance. Does he even go to church himself?
In the UK most of the increases in church attendance appear to have been in the catholic church, if we are looking at the possibility an individual might be responsible for that the obvious candidate would be Pope Francis, I would have thought, especially as the increase appears to have happened under his watch.
Blimey this forum is screwed, you can't edit on this thread anymore, at least I can't. And the format is once again ****ed.
Wow, going down some Catholic message board rabbit holes.
I didn't realise how much practicing Catholics hated the recently deceased Pope.
But they're all agreed that their Christian values essentially came from Second Temple Judaism right?
Andrew Tate claims to have converted to Islam in 2022 so I don't see how he could have influenced an increase in church attendance.
Jordan Petersen as far as I am aware is not deeply religious so I cant imagine that he has had any significant effect on church attendance. Does he even go to church himself?
Andrew Tate converted to Islam but has also been accused of Islamaphobia more recently than his conversion. His brother Tristan converted to Christianity. Or re-confirmed his Christianity?
I don't know, who gives a shit what these ****-knuckles believe or don't believe. It's what their disaffected followers think. Like it or not, Catholicism embodies a lot of what they are looking for. It is interesting reading the views of some Catholic women on the subject:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CatholicWomen/comments/198ffsb/why_catholic_men_are_trad/
As for Petersen, you don't have to do much googling to see that he is having an effect:
Why do you think Pope Francis attracted men but not women? You would think the numbers would be at least equal if it was simply because there was a Pope who wasn't a complete arsehole?
Because I think the Pope has more influence on Catholics and the Catholic Church than a geezer who isn't even a Catholic and another geezer who claims to be a Muslim, whatever the opinions of an individual which you might have found on Reddit
I might have had some respect for the Pope if his final act had been taking down Vance.
Because I think the Pope has more influence on Catholics and the Catholic Church than a geezer who isn't even a Catholic and another geezer who claims to be a Muslim, whatever the opinions of an individual which you might have found on Reddit
Actually, it was multiple geezers and multiple articles written by practicing Catholics. And a bunch of Catholic women expressing concerns about the type of men who had been joining the Catholic Church lately.
But anyway, let's assume none of these opinions are correct.
The question I asked you was, why were men attracted to what Pope Francis was doing but not women?
I didn't mean to make you feel miserable. Sorry about that.
Thanks. I can see that the term 'Christian Values' is pretty loaded, but that's why I try to make a distinction between Jesus and Christianity.
Its either the absolute word of god or its meaningless
Lol TJ a very very large number of people disagree with you and have done for centuries. This is not your area of expertise, is it?
FROM THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE (MY BOLD)
However, a recent survey entitledThe Quiet Revival, commissioned by the Bible Society and conducted by YouGov, shows that church attendance in England and Wales has actually increased by 50% over the past six years, and that young people aged between 18 and 24 are the second largest demographic in attendance (behind those who are 65 and over). The trend is especially strong with young men, with 21% aged 18 to 24 saying they attend church at least once a month, compared with 12% of young women. The data also shows that generation Z are particularly drawn to Roman Catholicism, which accounts for a significant rise in the number of Catholics in England, almost closing the overall gap between those who identify as Catholic and those who identify as Anglican.
I find those numbers staggering. Either there really is some major cultural/societal shift, or the survey/sampling is shit. I always am a bit suspicious when a survey commissioned by a particular interest group discovers something which is good news for that group. Perhaps there is some Tate-driven clamour to the church looking for masculinity (or prey)? or equally young men finding sanctuary from that bullshit in a more caring ethos. Interestingly they didn't actually back up the "attendance figures" with any data from churches, this is based on who claimed to attend. Contrast to:
https://www.ucanews.com/news/uk-mass-attendance-jumps-significantly-data-shows/107888
(headline both essentially saying attendance recovering but not yet back to pre-pandemic attendance so contradicting the Quiet Revival 2018-2024 increase claim)
The question I asked you was, why were men attracted to what Pope Francis was doing but not women?
I suggest that you pop into a Catholic church during Sunday mass and note the amount of men relative to the amount of women.Pope Francis actually elevated the role of women within the Catholic Church.
Women have always had higher attendances at church. Pope Francis hasn't done anything to alienate them so you would expect any increase in Church involvement to show an equal increase for both genders, or for more women to be attending.
So why are the numbers showing this unprecedented enthusiasm amongst young men?
The only explanation I've seen is worrying. That it's young men in the manosphere or manosphere adjacent who are being attracted because of the idea of 'tradition' that the Church seems to represent.
I'm asking you for an alternative explanation. You aren't providing one. All you're doing is getting more and more defensive about this concerning possibility that is being floated.
If you have an alternative explanation I'd like to hear it?
Bruce your explanation is certainly possible, but whilst I'm no fan of the Church(es), to an outsider to both the church and the manosphere they don't seem like obvious bedfellows. So alternative explanations:
1. The increase is not real, or at least the most surprising gender/age effects are not real
2. Rather than being encouraged towards the church by the manosphere, they are going there to get away from it
Both of those could be wrong too, or all three might be right in different areas / specific churches etc. The idea that the church is becoming a haven for toxic masculinity (rather than other forms of harm) doesn't really explain why the numbers of young women are allegedly increasing too, albeit at a slower rate - you would expect that to discourage them.
I write this as someone who has only voluntarily attended an ordinary church service once, and that was as a teenager who fancied the minister's daughter. I imagine the experience would need to be quite different to mine to get people with no actual interest in religion consistently going back!
Absolutely, there could be alternative explanations.
However, like I said, I started going down some Catholic forum rabbit holes which do seem to back up the manosphere theory. It's something that's probably worth keeping an eye on. Especially if the American branch of the Catholic Church grows in influence. Those guys seem genuinely scary.
Of course, reddit and forums aren't the best place to get a real sense of what is going on in a community. If you came here to find out about mountain biking you would end up assuming most mountain bikers don't actually do any mountain biking. And those who do hate it.
Having attended more church services than most of you, most recently morning mass at Notre dame, I find the idea that Tate and Peterson fans are the latest recuits implausible. No tatoos, no radical hair cuts, drab boring middle-class attire, no shades - you know those meme photos of boring harmless nerds, well that's a typical young person in a congregation. I've got discretely taken photos to prove it but won't be posting them.
Having attended more church services than most of you, most recently morning mass at Notre dame, I find the idea that Tate and Peterson fans are the latest recuits implausible. No tatoos, no radical hair cuts, drab boring middle-class attire, no shades - you know those meme photos of boring harmless nerds, well that's a typical young person in a congregation. I've got discretely taken photos to prove it but won't be posting them.
We are living through very turbulent times - at first socially, then economically. In the 60s, people were too cool to do what their parents were doing, that persisted through the 70s and then 80s material kids had no need for any of it. In the 90s and early 2000s we were better off, now the pace of change and 'churn' of ideas is so rapid that I can absolutely see the appeal of something like Church with its stable communities cutting across age groups. Almost certainly a better social group than your Twitter followers. Perhaps it's just a natural swing back.
I mean, I'm a 70s/80s kid and my attitude has softened hugely since I was young. I won't be attending, but I am certainly a lot more sympathetic partly through some of my own life experiences.
I find the idea that Tate and Peterson fans are the latest recuits implausible. No tatoos, no radical hair cuts, drab boring middle-class attire, no shades - you know those meme photos of boring harmless nerds, well that's a typical young person in a congregation.
I think your mental image of the average Tate or Petersen fan and the reality of the average Tate and Petersen fan are quite far removed.
We are living through very turbulent times - at first socially, then economically. In the 60s, people were too cool to do what their parents were doing, that persisted through the 70s and then 80s material kids had no need for any of it. In the 90s and early 2000s we were better off, now the pace of change and 'churn' of ideas is so rapid that I can absolutely see the appeal of something like Church with its stable communities cutting across age groups. Almost certainly a better social group than your Twitter followers. Perhaps it's just a natural swing back.
Sure, but at the same time the major anomaly here is that it's young men who are being attracted rather than young people.
Women have always outnumbered men in church participation up until now. The question is, what has changed so that suddenly we have almost twice as many Gen-Z men going to church as Gen-Z women?
the major anomaly here is that it's young men who are being attracted rather than young people.
Agree, and there could plausibly be a sinister reason for it as you say.
I think you might have Tate and Peterson mixed up with other people. I think Tate does have tats, but not always on display? I don't think Peterson has any (on display). Both clearly put some effort into their looks but I don't think I'd describe either as having radical hair cuts or attire that wasn't "middle class".Having attended more church services than most of you, most recently morning mass at Notre dame, I find the idea that Tate and Peterson fans are the latest recuits implausible. No tatoos, no radical hair cuts, drab boring middle-class attire, no shades -
I don't, but have you spoken to many boring nerds - quite a few actually follow Tate (and probably Peterson) - you don't need to buy the Armani (other brands are available) suit, drive the Ferrari (other brands are available) or wear designer sunnies to think that those things and the people associated with them are aspirational or that their manifesto makes sense.you know those meme photos of boring harmless nerds,
well that's a typical young person in a congregation.
it could also be an "incel" perhaps the religious interest is trying to justify themselves as voluntarily celibate!
Agree, and there could plausibly be a sinister reason for it as you say.
It could also be that the same root cause that is driving some young men to the manosphere is also driving other young men to the church.
The route cause being isolation, loneliness, lack of purpose, lack of opportunities, etc. But then you'd expect to see the same trend with the Anglican Church which doesn't seem to be happening. At least not to the same extent.
I just think it's worth keeping an eye on. It will also be worth seeing if the next Pope continues with the direction Francis was trying to take or not.
Look at the rebuilding of Notre Dame after the fire a couple of years ago, nearly everyone in France thought it was a national disaster, the rebuilding to as original as possible was supported by an overwhelming majority of people, they must all be suckers, right?
France is a bit of an outlier due to The Terror, religion was removed (forcibly in some cases) from every day political decision making. In comparison to The Irish Republic where Catholicism was up until quite recently still driving all political decision making. They have not completely freed themselves from its grip but they're getting there.
Theocracy of any sort has no place in modern politics!
Women have always had higher attendances at church. Pope Francis hasn't done anything to alienate them so you would expect any increase in Church involvement to show an equal increase for both genders, or for more women to be attending.
I think you might have got that arse about face. As you point out women have always had higher attendance in church than men so for that reason it is logical to assume there is the potential for a greater number of men to now become attracted to attending church than women.
And as you say Pope Francis hasn't done anything to alienate women, in fact their role in the Catholic Church today is the most prominent it has been since the days of the early Christians.
"Altar boys" no longer exist and I suspect that the overwhelming majority of altar servers are now girls. Likewise I suspect that the majority of the readings in masses are said by women as are probably also the majority of eucharistic ministers.
I can't imagine that now is a good time for misogynist men to get attracted to the Catholic Church, whatever a pair of non-Catholic influencers might have to say.
In fact said they said anything at all? Whatever the answer I feel confident that Pope Francis has had a higher profile with regards to the Catholic Church than a self-proclaimed Muslim such as Andrew Tate.
I think you might have got that arse about face. As you point out women have always had higher attendance in church than men so for that reason it is logical to assume there is the potential for a greater number of men to now become attracted to attending church than women.
Nope, we aren't talking about a percentage increase, we're talking about absolute numbers. In terms of absolute numbers almost twice as many Gen-Z men are going to Church as Gen-Z women.
And the same isn't being seen in the Anglican Church.
You have to wonder how much of this is because of Catholic Tiktok (and such like). In which case that would explain why it's the Catholic Church that is seeing the increase and not the Anglicans.
I'm not sure if that would be a good thing as the Catholic Church in the US does not really seem to be on board with the ideas Pope Francis had. And that's putting it lightly.
The route cause being isolation, loneliness, lack of purpose, lack of opportunities, etc.
How wholly unlike organised religion to target such people. Praying and preying is only one vowel apart.
In other news, a bunch of replies.
Christian morality is highly misogynistic and homophobic
Gonna call this one. There is nothing in Christian mythology which encourages homophobia. Rather, the bible says "don't put it up the botty" about 6 times without ever specifying the gender of the recipient. Christian "morality" is against anal sex, not homosexuality.
Of course, that doesn't mean that some folk might twist that. Whatever your world views, the texts are so self-contradictory that you can probably find something in the bible which reinforces your opinion.
The Catholic Church still won’t endorse the use of contraception,
Apologies if I've posted this before. An ex of mine went to a Catholic high school, with your actual nuns milling about. The sum total of her sex education classes was "don't do it, but if you do do it then don't use a condom as that offends god." This was in the 1980s, at the height of the AIDS pandemic. It wasn't just "teenage pregnancy" reckless, it was "you could catch an incurable disease and die" levels of recklessness.
I've kinda become less militant over the years about religion, but this sort of myopic idiocy has my urine on a rolling boil.
Nowhere do I state there was no morality before christianity
I'm with TJ here, that's exactly what you were implying. Does "roots" have an alternative meaning from the one I'm familiar with?
We're so used to the idea of fundamental human rights and everyone being of equal value that we forget that these ideas were spread (at least in our tradition) by Jesus and whilst to us it seems pretty basic, these were radical and dangerous ideas at the time, and that's what got him killed.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the fables are true, what got him killed was presenting a threat to the Roman Empire's established power and control.
AIUI, I am not a Theologist.
In terms of absolute numbers almost twice as many Gen-Z men are going to Church as Gen-Z women.
I don't believe that for one minute. There is absolutely no way that twice as many young men attend catholic churches than young women.
I don't know about other areas but locally in (West) Croydon the typical demographic of Catholic Church attendance includes a very significant amount of black girls/women in their teens and twenties.
This thread has got me wondering which causes more harm to society: conspiracy theory nuts or religious nuts. Some of the correlations, cause and effects, and assumptions being put forward are more imaginative than Bible verses. 🙂
Christian "morality" is against anal sex, not homosexuality.
Well it is and isn't. Have a look at Dan McClellan (actual proper scholar) on Instagram or whatever he's on.
He says thet "The Bible" doesnt say anything at all; it has no single voice. It's just some human author or another who is saying the thing. So that person might want anal sex forbidden but you don't have to agree. Thats not how the Bible works, no matter how many zealots (on either side) would have you believe.
what got him killed was presenting a threat to the Roman Empire's established power and control.
You obviously missed the bit about the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, "washing his hands" of the death of an innocent man?
I don't believe that for one minute. There is absolutely no way that twice as many young men attend catholic churches than young women.
OK, we don't have decent data, but what we do have suggests that overall it might not be far off that.
The trend is especially strong with young men, with 21% aged 18 to 24 saying they attend church at least once a month, compared with 12% of young women. The data also shows that generation Z are particularly drawn to Roman Catholicism, which accounts for a significant rise in the number of Catholics in England, almost closing the overall gap between those who identify as Catholic and those who identify as Anglican.
If you don't want to accept it that's absolutely fine. I'd question the source for these numbers as well.
However, for several years now we've been reading stories saying that young men are increasingly being drawn to the Catholic Church as well as to Orthodox Christianity. A quick bit of googling will bring up plenty information about it.
.Christian morality is highly misogynistic and homophobic
Gonna call this one. There is nothing in Christian mythology which encourages homophobia. Rather, the bible says "don't put it up the botty" about 6 times without ever specifying the gender of the recipient. Christian "morality" is against anal sex, not homosexuality.
Of course, that doesn't mean that some folk might twist that. Whatever your world views, the texts are so self-contradictory that you can probably find something in the bible which reinforces your opinion.
The Bible is homophobic (as the majority of human societies have been for the majority of human existence). Leviticus 20:13 is pretty clear: “‘If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them."
Or if you want the Common English Bible translation: "If a man has sexual intercourse with a man as he would with a woman, the two of them have done something detestable. They must be executed; their blood is on their own heads."
It's a pretty spectacular twisting of the text to interpret that as a prohibition on anal sex and not homophobic.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Leviticus%2020%3A13
Well it is and isn't. Have a look at Dan McClellan (actual proper scholar) on Instagram or whatever he's on.
He says thet "The Bible" doesnt say anything at all; it has no single voice. It's just some human author or another who is saying the thing. So that person might want anal sex forbidden but you don't have to agree. Thats not how the Bible works, no matter how many zealots (on either side) would have you believe.
Well, yes, and that's how books work. The bible is a collection of texts written by men, then translated by other men. The notion that it's the word of god is circular reasoning.
Point is, from the translations of versions into languages that I can understand, homosexuality is not explicitly verboten. I looked into this at length a while ago in order to score Internet Points (I wish I could find it again, it's on here somewhere). Rather it's the physical act which is frowned upon.
You have to wonder how much of this is because of Catholic Tiktok (and such like). In which case that would explain why it's the Catholic Church that is seeing the increase and not the Anglicans.
1) I can't think of any plusible reason why young men would be attending in twice the numbers of young women. And when you get a suprising bit of data without a plausible explanation then it's a distinct possibility that it's simply wrong.
2) if you want to explain why Catholicism, Orthodoxy and esoteric Protestant sects are rising in popularity and the Church of England isn't, don't look at Tiktok - look at immigration for a simpler answer.
A huge mumber of Central and Eastern European EIU citizens camr to the UK under Blair (I cant find a number offhand) - most of those countries are Catholic and their kids are now entering the 16-25 agr bracket.
2 million people (net) immigrated to the UK between 2012 and 2021. Another 728,000 people came in y/e 2024 alone. As the UK is comparatively irreligous, most of those people came from countries that are more religious than the UK, and where there are many Catholics and evangelicals: Nigeria, the Philippines, India, Brazil, Colombia. 220,000ish Ukrainians came the the UK in 2022-2023 - that alone will give you a bump in the number of Orthodox and Catholic adherent, particular at a time of (understandable) nationalist fervour.
Hindus as a proportion of the English population increased by a bit more than 50% in 2001-2021. You wouldn't look at that statistic and think "aha, this proves that British people are converting from atheism to Hinduism because of HindutvaTok". Of course not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_England
Rather it's the physical act which is frowned upon.
..by some bloke two thousand years ago. That doesn't mean it's forbidden unless your priest says it is. And even then you can choose a new priest, because you are free to disagree with him, at least in many traditions. You can draw your own conclusions. All sounds a bit like Western liberalism, doesn't it?
Clearly Western liberalism and many modern Christian variants are interlinked, but which way round? Maybe it's because of the contradictions and obviously ridiculous things in the Bible (like wearing mixed fibres) that people ended up having to interpret and filter it, which demanded a more open minded approach, at least in many cases. TBH even die-hard biblical literalists probably don't stick to the mixing fibres things and stoning adulterers, so even they are applying their own filters. They just want to hate gays, so they cherry pick to suit their agenda which is basically what everyone has to do.
I think once you start looking at how the original Hebrew was translated, that is when you start to find that it might not be as clear as first thought.
https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/
And we're back to Leviticus which was about 1400 years before Christ was even born. If people are going to slag off christianity it would be nice if they limited themselves to the Greek texts and chriist's teachings. Some churches, notably the Jehovas witnesses seem very keen on Leviticus and are unable to see the contradictions with the Greek texts or even within Leviticus itself - thou shall not kill, well apart from stoning to death for having a bit fun. For Christ's sake... . 🙂
Anyhow, Pope Francis did pretty well compared with just about any other contemporary public figure of his rank I can think of and I hope his successor continues in the same vein. Sanna Marin did pretty well too.
1) I can't think of any plusible reason why young men would be attending in twice the numbers of young women. And when you get a suprising bit of data without a plausible explanation then it's a distinct possibility that it's simply wrong.
2) if you want to explain why Catholicism, Orthodoxy and esoteric Protestant sects are rising in popularity and the Church of England isn't, don't look at Tiktok - look at immigration for a simpler answer.
A huge mumber of Central and Eastern European EIU citizens camr to the UK under Blair (I cant find a number offhand) - most of those countries are Catholic and their kids are now entering the 16-25 agr bracket.
You can't think of any plausible reason? What about the one the rest of us have been discussing for the last page or so?
Your immigration theory is definitely plausible. However, the Catholic and Orthodox church's increase in popularity isn't confined to the UK. It's mirrored in the US. And also Australia.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-06/gen-z-religion/104690496
I guess immigration could have something to do with it over there as well but if we're talking about a Western World phenomena involving young people my first instinct is to look at social media.
But yes, data is limited and the possibility it's simply wrong is definitely plausible.
Oh and I counted the number of clearly males/females in my photos of the congregation in Notre Dame. 3 more females than males.
Oh and I counted the number of clearly males/females in my photos of the congregation in Notre Dame. 3 more females than males.
Ah, well, that changes everything. Case closed.
Do yourself a favour and whatever you do, don't type 'Gen Z men church attendance' into google.
..by some bloke two thousand years ago.
... allegedly.
It's amusing that some posters here will reject the NT as uncertainly inaccurate, yet have dogmatic faith about what happened many years prior to the rise of Christianity.
Maybe it's because of the contradictions and obviously ridiculous things in the Bible (like wearing mixed fibres) that people ended up having to interpret and filter it, which demanded a more open minded approach, at least in many cases.
The problem here is, as TJ alludes to in an albeit blunt fashion, as soon as you start cherry-picking the bits that you like and rejecting the parts that you don't it makes a mockery of the entire thing. Your "obviously ridiculous" may well be obviously ridiculous today, but it obviously wasn't obviously ridiculous at some point in the past or it wouldn't have been included in there in the first place.
You what? My claim? I've made no such claim, you people have absolutely shocking reading comprehension.
Of course its everyone else. It couldnt possibly be you could it? For someone demanding civil debate you could possibly try it yourself.
Lets take your claims
In China the protests against bad Emperors were along the lines of 'you aren't doing your job properly' - i.e. you still have the divine right to rule over us but you're not holding up your end of the bargain therefore you're not doing what the heavens ordained you to do.
Well aside from the counter arguments dating back to 200bc. So a rather strong fail there.
In Europe this right was called into question, because all are equal before God.
This is highly debatable. A lot of the arguments were more people not liking the particular brand of god the monarch was pushing which obviously gave issues with the divine right.
Of course the Church, being a human institution, becomes powerful and greedy, but there are always people protesting against it - Martin Luther uses these ideas to start the Reformation
This seems to be claiming that Luther was against the divine right of kings which wasnt the case. He was pretty strongly pro aristocracy and really didnt like the peasants getting ideas.
The divine right of kings was really doubled down on after the reformation FFS. It doesnt for obvious reasons play that well with Roman Catholicism.
Get multiple authors from STW together today to write about the same events and you might find a few discrepancies about what happened even last year. The devil is in the detail. That we're arguing about it today says it's stood the test of time pretty well.
There's then a chicken and egg thing. Are the things we're debating down to the influence of the Bible and its sequel the Quran on current society or are some things intrinsic to human thinking in a genetically programmed sort of way. To be arguing about the morality of homosexuality 3400 years on says something about human nature but I'm not sure what.
As for Google, Bruce Wee, like Facebook it seems to think I'm an RN supporting right wing racist nut job despite my searches mainly being at the other end of the spectrum. Facebook is convinced I want to read about Marion Marechal le Pen, I don't. Google will produce whatever Sundar Pichai wants me to read about Gen Z and churchgoing - the algorithms are feeding your thoughts. I have far more faith in what I observe with my own eyes than what Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai feed me. You really think my observations are merely anecdote and less reliable than Google promoted articles? Go to church yourself and tell us what you expereince.
You can draw your own conclusions. All sounds a bit like Western liberalism, doesn't it?
And then we run, once again, into the problem of saying Europe is based on Christianity morality if people get to pick and choose what they want coming out with massively differing interpretations.
Then, to start namedropping philosophers, its like Leo Strauss and his argument you should read some philosophers work bearing in mind that since they liked important parts of their bodies still attached their texts might mask what they really think.
Probably right for Maimonides, although there is the challenge of whether the reading is right, but runs into issues for some other philosophers if you tried the same.
Maybe it's because of the contradictions and obviously ridiculous things in the Bible (like wearing mixed fibres)
When you look at many of those rules they probably did have a reason, good or otherwise, behind them which has been lost in the midst of time.
England had a rule that burial shrouds should be made of wool for about 150 years. Write the holy text at the right time and it might have become a firm religious law. Reason was commercial in an attempt to help out the wool trade but a thousand years later who would know.
In Mongolia some of their religions had rules/beliefs about marmots which basically said stay well away from them. Those have a really good reason namely the risk of the plague. Mongolia has backed up those religious laws with secular ones saying the same thing but giving the reason why.
To be arguing about the morality of homosexuality 3400 years on says something about human nature but I'm not sure what.
Many people are idiots?
In Europe this right was called into question, because all are equal before God.
This is highly debatable.
Which part? That the right was called into question, or that all are equal under god?
Which part? That the right was called into question,
The divine right. The latter is pushing it a tad as well but sticking to the rather simple stuff.
Many people are idiots?
That would be too charitable, I suspect it's something darker.
You can't think of any plausible reason? What about the one the rest of us have been discussing for the last page or so
I think it is actually just you who has been suggesting for the last page or so that the increase in Catholic church attendance is likely to be linked to two non-Catholics, Petersen and Tate.
Tbh until mefty mentioned it on this thread I had no idea that church attendance had increased significantly in recent years. It surprises me greatly and I don't know the reasons but I would imagine that are multiple reasons, not just one single reason.
I think immigration is indeed probably likely to be a contributing factor along with a whole lot of others. But as you point out this increase in church attendance isn't solely limited to the UK. Which makes me consider another plausible reason which you ironically appear to have dismissed out of hand, and one which has had a global significant, certainly with regards to the Catholic Church, the Pope Francis effect.
I don't know about you but I have certainly heard quite a few both nonbelievers and lapsed Catholics, especially in political circles, talk highly of Pope Francis.
Despite you appearing to want to focus solely on Gen Z not all the increase in Catholic Church attendance appears to be among them, but I can understand how Pope Francis's strong commitment to social justice is likely to have struck a chord with them, young people tend to have strong views on social justice.
Whilst he might well have received significant disapproval from the likes of American conservative Catholics Pope Francis's appeal was very widespread, even among many Muslims.
And certainly the increase in Catholic Church attendance does seem to strongly tie in with his time as Pope.
Go to church yourself and tell us what you expereince.
So we all go to church and then extrapolate our experience to the rest of the World? And then base our arguments on that extrapolation?
I don't have a Facebook, Twitter, Bluesky, or any other social media account. Apart from this one.
If you are worried about the algorithm feeding you what it thinks you want to hear then can I suggest duckduckgo.
Tbh until mefty mentioned it on this thread I had no idea that church attendance had increased significantly in recent years. It surprises me greatly and I don't know the reasons but I would imagine that are multiple reasons, not just one single reason.
All of this ☝ right here.
Christ. First the pope dies, now I'm agreeing with Ernie. It'll be locusts next. 😁
I think it is actually just you who has been suggesting for the last page or so that the increase in Catholic church attendance is likely to be linked to two non-Catholics, Petersen and Tate.
Actually, I pointed out this Gen Z men thing which is actually pretty unprecedented. I offered explanations that I had read and asked if anyone else had any alternative explanations.
I listened to the immigration argument but I also pointed out that it can't be tied to a single country so immigration is unlikely to be the only cause. It could obviously be a factor but doesn't explain the gender split.
This is what I have been saying is happening based on articles going back the last couple of years:
- Gen Z men are, for the first time since this information has been recorded, going to church more than Gen Z women.
- They seem to be particularly attracted to the Catholic church in the UK, while in the US it is Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. In Australia it again seems to be mostly Catholicism. Possibly if you started searching you might find similar data in other countries.
- Various opinion pieces, both from within and outside the church, have said this may be related to the manosphere and crisis of masculinity somehow. Whether that is true or not or if it is an indirect relation is not clear.
I think search engines are a better way of researching these things but if you want to count the number of faces you see next time you got to church and use that as the basis of whatever argument you are trying to make (honestly, you are being so defensive it's difficult to figure out what your point is) then you go ahead.
I Use mainly Brave, Quant and DuckDuckGo. 🙂 and Google. 🙁 There are differences in what they promote and also what they censor.