Decline of Christianity and Religion

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Part of the reason for Christianity's decline is the decline in religion in general. People are more into custom designing their spirituality than being part of a given religious tradition. I do not think this is for the best -- being involved in a religious community is associated with being healthier, happier, longer lived, and having a buffer against anxiety and depression. We will not be as well off with this "spiritual not religious" deal.

Another part of the reason for the decline of Christianity is its exclusivism. The world has gotten smaller. Communities are more religiously diverse, and then there are all the people we know online from all over the world. Everyone knows that Aunt Sue is not a Christian, and we don't want to think of her as going to hell, especially with her being so nice and all. My guess is that Christianity will either survive by adopting a much more inclusive afterlife, or it may simply go by the wayside.

But if I feel God is telling me to go down a certain path, the church should keep its mouth shut.

 

[metis]

I’m more of a Gatorade zero gal

That's what my wife drinks by the gallon. Myself, I prefer a good Bordeaux.

 

[metis]

But if I feel God is telling me to go down a certain path, the church should keep its mouth shut.

IMO, go with where and what you feel God wants you to go.

Via con Dios.

 

[danieldemol]

Man's heart is independent of his environment, you see this clearly in the case of the disparity in character that exists between siblings, and neighbourhood peers. i.e. all exposed to relatively the same environment, and yet the difference in character surpasses each one's unique experiences.

More assertion, what studies into the chemical composition and brain structure of the siblings has been made?
We are all a certain amount physically unique, and this physical uniqueness could account for the difference in character of siblings exposed to similar environments.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

However, many people claim that it is responsible for all that we see,
and is "a god"

I haven't heard many people claim that, sounds like a strawman to me.

In my opinion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Man's heart is independent of his environment, you see this clearly in the case of the disparity in character that exists between siblings, and neighbourhood peers. i.e. all exposed to relatively the same environment, and yet the difference in character surpasses each one's unique experiences.

The question of nature verses nurture is a false dichotomy. The evidence indicates taht many things are factors into what we choose and what we become. Genetics, epigenetics, family, environment, experiences, etc.

 

[DNB]

More assertion, what studies into the chemical composition and brain structure of the siblings has been made?
We are all a certain amount physically unique, and this physical uniqueness could account for the difference in character of siblings exposed to similar environments.

In my opinion.

So then, a person is only capable of so much change because his physiology dictates the foundations of his character?
And, if so, do you have a static formula of the chemical composition of a selfish or avaricious person? Do you know what the biological make-up is of an altruistic or gregarious person is?
Can you tell the type of character that one is dealing with from birth, since you've made this out to be a science?

 

[DNB]

The question of nature verses nurture is a false dichotomy. The evidence indicates taht many things are factors into what we choose and what we become. Genetics, epigenetics, family, environment, experiences, etc.

Yes, of course, but the reason that nature versus nature is not a false dichotomy is because the characteristics that are derived from environmental factors, they are corrigible. The traits that stem from innate genetical chemistries, they are indelible. Separate a child immediately at birth from their parents, and 16 years later one invariably will see the parents in the child.
Basically, show me the parents, and I'll show you the children.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, of course, but the reason that nature versus nature is not a false dichotomy is because the characteristics that are derived from environmental factors, they are corrigible. The traits that stem from innate genetical chemistries, they are indelible. Separate a child immediately at birth from their parents, and 16 years later one invariably will see the parents in the child.
Basically, show me the parents, and I'll show you the children.

Environmental factors are not entirely corrigible. Things happen in our lives that can permanently affect things like how our brains are wired, what neurotransmitters we have too little of, etc. IOW there is such a thing as being scarred by our experiences. And certainly, when we make our choices, we draw from our experiences. For example, it is not uncommon for people to admit that the bullying they received in school follows them their whole lives. I could have chosen a million different examples.

 

[danieldemol]

So then, a person is only capable of so much change because his physiology dictates the foundations of his character?

The physical characteristics of the brain can and sometimes are changed themselves through brain damage or illness, so perhaps someday in the future the foundation of our character may be modifiable by surgery, it already seems to respond positively or negatively to chemical manipulation of various sorts such as treatment for pschizophrenia (positive) or substance abuse (negative).

And, if so, do you have a static formula of the chemical composition of a selfish or avaricious person? Do you know what the biological make-up is of an altruistic or gregarious person is?

I'm not a neurochemist, or any type of neuroscientist, so that is above my pay grade.

Can you tell the type of character that one is dealing with from birth, since you've made this out to be a science?

First of all one's character need not be constant due to the physical structural and chemical changes and environmental changes that may happen since birth.

Second of all I think one can gain a vague idea of the present character of a person through observation providing one is sufficiently well acquainted with that person.

In my opinion.

 

[DNB]

Environmental factors are not entirely corrigible. Things happen in our lives that can permanently affect things like how our brains are wired, what neurotransmitters we have too little of, etc. IOW there is such a thing as being scarred by our experiences. And certainly, when we make our choices, we draw from our experiences. For example, it is not uncommon for people to admit that the bullying they received in school follows them their whole lives. I could have chosen a million different examples.

They are potentially corrigible, it depends on the person. And, therefore, they are not intrinsic. Genetics are intrinsic

 

[DNB]

I'm not a neurochemist, or any type of neuroscientist, so that is above my pay grade.

You don't need to be to answer the question. If all characters are quantifiable, can an authority on the matter induce a person's character from the womb?

Second of all I think one can gain a vague idea of the present character of a person through observation providing one is sufficiently well acquainted with that person.

I can do that too, that's not the point here, we're not using medical instruments to make that assessment. You keep ascribing all forms of one's personality to be based solely on their chemical make-up.

Why do people in general, act outside of their intellectual constitution? If humans have the intellectual capacity far greater than any other species on earth, and since all a persons attributes are defined by their anatomy, why does man's behaviour defy his intellect? i.e. he is the most absurd, irrational, self-anihilating, misguided, impractical, self-abusive creature on the planet.
There is a spiritual warfare at hand, this is clearly evidenced by all the wars, bigotries, racism, tortures, vices, alcoholics, etc....

Again, you put the cart before the horse, why can one's environment affect a human negatively? Because, the sin came first and corrupted the environment that influences man, the earth or nature did not corrupt itself.

 

[danieldemol]

You don't need to be to answer the question. If all characters are quantifiable, can an authority on the matter induce a person's character from the womb?

Definition of induce;

1. succeed in persuading or leading (someone) to do something.
   "the pickets induced many workers to stay away"
   
   
2. 
   bring about or give rise to.
   "none of these measures induced a change of policy"

Are you asking me, "can an authority lead a person's character from the whom?"

Or, "can an authority bring about a person's character from the whom?"

Or other?

I can do that too, that's not the point here, we're not using medical instruments to make that assessment. You keep ascribing all forms of one's personality to be based solely on their chemical make-up.

Actually based on a combination of chemical make-up, brain structure and environmental influences.

Why do people in general, act outside of their intellectual constitution? If humans have the intellectual capacity far greater than any other species on earth, and since all a persons attributes are defined by their anatomy, why does man's behaviour defy his intellect? i.e. he is the most absurd, irrational, self-anihilating, misguided, impractical, self-abusive creature on the planet.

Mans behaviour defies the higher functions of his brain because the lower functions are wired by faulty evolved survival mechanisms such as fight or flight etc. In other words man's brain is not strictly wired for dispassionate critical thinking.

There is a spiritual warfare at hand, this is clearly evidenced by all the wars, bigotries, racism, tortures, vices, alcoholics, etc....

You may as well be saying there is spiritual warfare as evidenced by a certain percentage of cars being lemons to me.

Again, you put the cart before the horse, why can one's environment affect a human negatively? Because, the sin came first and corrupted the environment that influences man, the earth or nature did not corrupt itself.

How can sin come first? You have to have humans or other agents with unconstrained free will to have sin. And so far there isn't clear evidence of either.

In my opinion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They are potentially corrigible, it depends on the person. And, therefore, they are not intrinsic. Genetics are intrinsic

Not all of them ar potentially corrigible.

 

[DNB]

Definition of induce;
Are you asking me, "can an authority lead a person's character from the whom?"
Or, "can an authority bring about a person's character from the whom?"
Or other?

Induction, as opposed to deduce or deduction. Induce makes conclusions from the small to the big, deduce is the other war around.
Point being, what can a medical expert determine or induce, about one's character from the womb, since biological chemistry plays, I assume, a large part in defining one's personality?

Mans behaviour defies the higher functions of his brain because the lower functions are wired by faulty evolved survival mechanisms such as fight or flight etc. In other words man's brain is not strictly wired for dispassionate critical thinking.

But no other creature has such an aberration to their evolution. And plus, man is wired for objective and dispassionate rational thinking, it is proven every day but it is just that one can not ignore the other paradoxical aspect of his mental constitution. Which, is the rather prevalent and somewhat definitive aspect.

You may as well be saying there is spiritual warfare as evidenced by a certain percentage of cars being lemons to me.

Yes, you can, ...as far as why such capable people can make such quality products one day, then have a complete meltdown the next. Or, why some abide by certain work ethics and others don't.

How can sin come first? You have to have humans or other agents with unconstrained free will to have sin. And so far there isn't clear evidence of either..

I meant man's actions as initiating the corruption that was first introduced into the world. If nature was left on its own, and there were no spiritual influences upon it, we would never have a world where kidnapping, rape, genocide, deceit, abuse, corruption and racism were a daily occurrence. Nature has never produced these atrocities on their own. The animal kingdom may act in a manner that appears savage and ruthless, but, as said before, they don't have a moral conscience leading them to protest or attempt to eradicate such behaviour. Man, innately does, and this is where the spiritual warfare takes place.

 

[DNB]

Not all of them ar potentially corrigible.

Of course they are, for they are external influences that caused whatever trauma occurred. Thus, again, the impact or catalyst is not intrinsic and indelible.
Now, of course, people who have suffered trauma for extreme extended periods of time, a human's lifetime of therapy and rehabilitation may not be sufficient to reverse the effects. Or, our current expertise on the matter may not be adequate enough to truly find and incapacitate either the effects, or source of the disability.

 

[danieldemol]

Induction, as opposed to deduce or deduction. Induce makes conclusions from the small to the big, deduce is the other war around.
Point being, what can a medical expert determine or induce, about one's character from the womb, since biological chemistry plays, I assume, a large part in defining one's personality?

You might find the following article relevant and of interest since it is about one's character and the brain;
Everyone's different: what parts of the brain make our personalities so unique?
Also this A Brain Scan Can Tell A Lot About Your Personality And Intelligence; It's As Unique As Fingerprint

But no other creature has such an aberration to their evolution.

Blind religious assertion, animals are also wired for fight or flight and other irrational brain processes.

And plus, man is wired for objective and dispassionate rational thinking, it is proven every day but it is just that one can not ignore the other paradoxical aspect of his mental constitution. Which, is the rather prevalent and somewhat definitive aspect.

Different parts of the brain are wired for different functions, I see nothing paradoxical about that.

If nature was left on its own, and there were no spiritual influences upon it, we would never have a world where kidnapping, rape, genocide, deceit, abuse, corruption and racism were a daily occurrence. Nature has never produced these atrocities on their own. The animal kingdom may act in a manner that appears savage and ruthless, but, as said before, they don't have a moral conscience leading them to protest or attempt to eradicate such behaviour. Man, innately does, and this is where the spiritual warfare takes place.

All of this is blind religious assertion.

It overlooks that the purely material aspects of man are part of nature. It overlooks that although morality is more primitive in other species it still exists at a more primitive level. For example see the article titled "Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates";
Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates

As to your assertion that genocide and similar attrocities do not occur in nature, see this article from the LA times which states;
"Genocide, according to Jared Diamond, a research biologist at UCLA, is a behavior that Homo sapiens shares with the other primates, notably with the two extant species of chimpanzee. Attested in several other species, genocide is particularly well-documented among primates. Field research has shown clearly that bands of chimps exterminate rival bands down to the last member. As for the normality of genocide in humans, its empirical frequency--Diamond counts 17 attested occurrences between 1950 and 1990 alone--is disturbing confirmation that, in this of all instances, the immoral is not unnatural."

Source;
Genocide and Genes : A 'natural' action may be atrociously immoral, too

In my opinion.

 

[Tiberius]

But if I feel God is telling me to go down a certain path, the church should keep its mouth shut.

Of course, the problem is then one of figuring out if what you feel really is something from God, or just something from within yourself.

 

[DNB]

You might find the following article relevant and of interest since it is about one's character and the brain;
Everyone's different: what parts of the brain make our personalities so unique?
Also this A Brain Scan Can Tell A Lot About Your Personality And Intelligence; It's As Unique As Fingerprint


Blind religious assertion, animals are also wired for fight or flight and other irrational brain processes.


Different parts of the brain are wired for different functions, I see nothing paradoxical about that.



All of this is blind religious assertion.

It overlooks that the purely material aspects of man are part of nature. It overlooks that although morality is more primitive in other species it still exists at a more primitive level. For example see the article titled "Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates";
Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates

As to your assertion that genocide and similar attrocities do not occur in nature, see this article from the LA times which states;
"Genocide, according to Jared Diamond, a research biologist at UCLA, is a behavior that Homo sapiens shares with the other primates, notably with the two extant species of chimpanzee. Attested in several other species, genocide is particularly well-documented among primates. Field research has shown clearly that bands of chimps exterminate rival bands down to the last member. As for the normality of genocide in humans, its empirical frequency--Diamond counts 17 attested occurrences between 1950 and 1990 alone--is disturbing confirmation that, in this of all instances, the immoral is not unnatural."

Source;
Genocide and Genes : A 'natural' action may be atrociously immoral, too

In my opinion.

There's is not a single animal (non human) on this earth that will protest an injustice, eulogize the deceased, establish a legislative system. Man, on the other hand, indicatively does all these things.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You need to define 'moral.'
Below is a set of stats from the Gallop Poll showing how our view of morality has changed.
We can be 'moral' by saving whales these days, but feel that narcotics, gambling and
adutery are ok. The Japanese in 1941 thought it quite 'moral' to attack the USA because
America had embargoed their oil and challenged their own empire with its own. So it's
relative. But Christian morals, as specified in the Gospels, is not relative and is defined
by example, ie love your enemies.

Corrupt religious leaders. IMO most of them are corrupt whether they engage in corruption
or not because they have built religious structures which violate the Gospel - so what will
become of those Pharisees who also abuse children?.

Drug use is a medical problem, not a moral one.