>> The 21st century is going to be the last century for all Christian faiths.<<

Well, sixty years ago my Stalinist teachers taught me that it was going to be the 20th century. :-)) 

"" >> The 21st century is going to be the last century for all Christian faiths.<<

" Well, sixty years ago my Stalinist teachers taught me that it was going to be the 20th century. :-)) ""

You're both right - the 20th C will be the last full century that christian faiths dominated in the West, but the domination has persisted numerically and proportion-wise into the 21st C b/c the religious have much higher birth rates (especially Catholics).

My teachers were certainly not referring to “Christian faiths dominating in the West”. Marx-Leninist atheism, i.e. dialectical and historical materialism, that they were basing their prophesies on, was not meant to be restricted to the West only, although both Marx and Lenin (I am not sure about Brian) could be excused for not knowing that e.g. in Africa the number of Christians would increase from nine million in 1900 to 380 million in 2000. This is a fact, irrespective of what explanation one might want to offer for it.

Nevertheless, I agree that Christianity is no more restricted to the West, where it used to dominate. For instance, in absolute numbers, there are more Catholics attending church every Sunday in China than there are in Germany. And with Protestants it is even more so.

exactly George, which is why I added the "in the West" qualification.

Marxism & Leninism were abruptly introduced in response to constricting religiously-based feudalism in the days revolutions were the only way to change societies.

Today, social media is doing it.

I think it is more productive to find ways of living together with those who believe differently from you than to assume those beliefs will disappear. The New Testament and many Christian predictions since then put forth the idea that the world will end soon. Some Christian Churches display signs telling us of the imminent return of Jesus. These are Christian fantasies. The idea that the disappearance of Christianity is imminent is a non-Christian fantasy.

>> Marxism & Leninism were abruptly introduced in response to constricting religiously-based feudalism in the days revolutions were the only way to change societies. <<

Not Marxism, that is just a theory, but Marx-Leninism as it was put to practice. Whatever Marx-Leninism was a response to - after all, also Nazism was a response to something - what is horribly important is its practice that in both cases led to the death of tens of millions and the suffering of many more. And that not during the Dark Ages but in the (scientific, post-Enlightenment) 20th century.

>> Today, social media is doing it.<<
I agree, provided I understand properly what “it” refers to, although it will take some time to see whether this will lead to an increase in Christian self-awareness like it did in Russia and in East/Central Europe as a response to Marx-Leninist domination.

...A refreshing characteristic of Brians commentary is its “basic quality of understanding”. I agree with the analysis that mans’ animal instincts are a powerful force designed by nature to fulfil a most basic role of survival for the express purpose of entropy; or, order in nature leading to disorder!

..Without the rule of law superimposed over basic instincts, the state of disorder is unnecessarily hastened! A lesson to come for the Catholic Church I am afraid.

david f, Friday, 16 Nov 9:11:24am

I agree that christianity, or any other religion, is Not going to disappear soon.

But their numbers will continue to gradually decline with less justification for their doctrines and the divisions they cause.

I think we should be careful of assuming that priestly celibacy is the cause of child abuse. Many secular institutions, and religious ones run by denominations other than catholiocism, have been caught up in this appalling practice. Here in WA our most recent scandal involves abuse by Dennis and Neil McKenna at Katanning Hostel – a state-run institution. There have also been accusations of widespread abuse of young military and naval cadets.

I suspect the causes are less facile than Brian suggests, and are related to the culture of power and impunity that attends adults in respected positions with control over the lives of vulnerable youngsters with little or no family support. Churches might be particularly prone to this because of their self-image as upholder of righteousness, their culture of authority and conformity and their extensive engagement with the weak and vulnerable. But I suspect it’s more institutional and cultural failing than a product of celibacy.

Rhian, given that Catholic clergy abuse children at 6 times the rate of clergy from other faiths, there is clearly something peculiar to Catholicism that predisposes its priests to assaulting children with unprecedented frequency. Celibacy is clearly a contributing factor, if for no other reason than the presence of a wife allowing fewer opportunities for alone time with children.

No Candide, I agree with Rhian.
Paedophiles infest all forms of society, and they are just as likely to be married as not.
They are known to ingratiate themselves into single mother's homes and are sleeping with the mother at the same time as they are abusing her children.

So how does celibacy 'cause' paedophilia do you think?
Is the paedophile an abuser before he becomes a celibate priest?
I believe he is.

I tend to think the paedophile looks for places to go to where he can find easy access to kids. The Catholic Church is a huge organization with many children involved, so I reckon that's the only reason more paedophiles are found in their ranks...

.

Dear George, Dear McReal,

.

"The 21st century is going to be the last century for all Christian faiths".

I guess the author just wanted to finish on a positive note.

Our religious friends, whether Christian or otherwise, have not given us much to smile about these days.

Pretty glum really.

.

.

Dear Candide, Dear Suseonline,

.

Unlike cannibalism, I have never heard of paedophilia being practised by any living species other than human beings.

Among human beings, no particular social group seems to have a monopoly on such practice.

The fact that it has become common practice by the Church is particularly shocking because the Church is meant to be a safe haven for all of us. In addition, the Church is supposed to uphold the highest moral standards while condamning the very paedophilia it practices itself.

That is the equivalent of high treason and is absolute hypocracy.

Parents who continue to entrust their children to members of the crergy may be considered as wilfully exposing them to potential sexual abuse.

The Church has revealed itself not only as being perfectly incapable of providing a safe haven for our children, but its own representatives are a very real moral danger to them.

Judging from the ineffective corrective measures implemented by the Church in other countries following similar "Royal Commission investigations", it is not to be expected that results will be any different in Australia. The Pope will see to that.

The sole purpose of the whole exercise is to defend the right of the Church to continue to bring in as many innocent children to its fold as it can.

All the rest is aimed at giving otherwise reluctant parents good conscience.

.

…The “confessional” lies at the heart of the problem! This little institution of “Mums-the-word”, where criminals are given absolution, perpetuates crime; (difficult though this is to comprehend when RC Cannon Law itself condemns compliant criminal practice under the rule of “Complicit Absolution”).

…Cardinal Pell recently complained of the difficulty of the confessional confidentiality: But how could Pell not be guilty of hiding a crime when, under Cannon Law, the sins of a priest must be absolved under a hierarchical system involving senior clergy, where the knowledge and forgiveness of a particular crime is exposed for the “sin” of the crime to be forgiven. Transgression of those rules is termed a “sacrilege”. Is Pell then compliant in the crimes of pedophilia as well as “sacrilegious”?

…It appears to my logic and observations over the years that the root of the problem of pedophilia in the Catholic Church is with the complicit Bishops: Being those giving absolution to criminals, and who are aware of the crime; the “buck” must stop somewhere on its upward journey

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for your explanations and clarifications.

Please allow me, in turn, to refer you to the British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic, Bertrand Russell, whose debating techniques are not generally considered to be of an irrational nature.

In his 1952 article "Is there a God", Russell coined an analogy in order to parody religious argument. This is " Russell's teapot". Here is the link to the article:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

Contemporary versions of "Russell's teapot" are the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Though parodies of this nature are generally not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result, they are an appeal to common sense which the Cambridge Dictionary defines as "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way".

Cicero pointed out that the orator had to take into account the common sense of the crowd if he were to influence them. John Locke seems to have been of a similar state of mind in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding".

William of Ockham and his "Ockham's razor" maxim is not exactly at odds with this principle in so far as it celebrates the virtue of simplicity as a criterion of choice among competing theories.

These are some of the reasons, George, why I feel justified in thinking that parody as an appeal to common sense has its place in rational debate.

Which, of course, does not exclude the fact that parody is just as falsifiable as anything else you may consider to be authentic rational debate.

.

.

Oops! I posted that on the wrong thread.

.

I have now posted it where it should have been:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358&page=5

Sorry about that.

.