Internet killing religion?

[Irish YJ]

I've seen a few articles suggesting the same thing. This is not a particularly insightful article, but an interesting topic nonetheless. I would argue that the internet itself is not killing religion, but the information (science, news, alternative views and lifestyles) it provides all day every day, is the eroding religious norms and pushing otherwise unsaid truths into the public view.


Is the Internet killing religion? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Buster Bluth]

I've seen a few articles suggesting the same thing. This is not a particularly insightful article, but an interesting topic nonetheless. I would argue that the internet itself is not killing religion, but the information (science, news, alternative views and lifestyles) it provides all day every day, is the eroding religious norms and pushing otherwise unsaid truths into the public view.

Yeah that's the point haha

I think it certainly is killing religion. It's not what you know it's what you don't know and the internet fills that void better than anything in human history. My best friends growing up were Mormon and their church tends not to tell them that Joseph Smith was a con artist plagiarizing whole portions of existing myths so we could sleep with as many wives as he could. But you can get the real story on the internet. so access to the massive amount of information on the internet fills in those voids and when you get a complete picture you tend to realize that your religion is not special whatsoever.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Being a few clicks away from YouTube clips of Chistopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc doesn't hurt either.

 

[IrishInFl]

What I'm interested in is when they classification of non-religious rose in numbers. My guess, without any facts to back me up, is 2005. Both Reddit and YouTube were launched in 2005.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Europe began secularizing long before the internet came into existence. I'd suggest that the internet has had a marginal effect (at most) on the overall trend.

 

[Irish YJ]

Europe began secularizing long before the internet came into existence. I'd suggest that the internet has had a marginal effect (at most) on the overall trend.

I tend to agree in some aspects. I can only speak for myself (why I am a non participant), but I think the younger generation's departure has quickened quite a bit. I personally was the inquisitive type and often participated in healthy debate with my grade school and high school religion teachers (Catholic school 1-12). I found for the most part that if the teacher (priest, brother, sister, etc.) was younger (20s/30s), the healthier the discussion. The older ones could only quote scripture and say I need to have faith....... I was in fact searching for understanding and "fact and data".... today one only needs to crank up the IPAD and start Googling for any and all facets (fact and fiction).

 

[dshans]

Europe began secularizing long before the internet came into existence. I'd suggest that the internet has had a marginal effect (at most) on the overall trend.

I most certainly agree. It was clear to me, in my lifetime, that there was a move from blindly, doggedly religious toward rationally religious long before the internet was even a thought bubble in some wonks' minds.

Though not as prolific, as easily accessed or as widely disseminated; in "the olden days" there were books and conversations among the curious. Some were pro, some were con. The internet simply provides a large and growing trove of thought and opinion that reflects thousands of years of human inquiry.

There were bumps and blips (most political) along the physical and digital roads, but it is what it is regardless of the medium.

 

[BobD]

Unless your starting another Christian dating website.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I personally believe that the internet, as well as other mediums, have basically taken time away from the practice of religion. Spend an hour on line as oppossed to an hour of studying the Word. So yeah... in some respects I could buy that the internet has played a roll. How big a role is debateble and probably overstated to a degree.

If anything, the internet has allowed like- minded individuals to connect more easily, thus giving credence to the views and/or beliefs they probably had to begin with.

 

[AdmiralBackhand]

The internet can be a disaster, true. Personally, the internet and technology have helped me to find information to bolster my devotion. It can also hinder it if I let other things come first through distraction. I don't follow religion, however, and focus more on my relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

The internet is just a medium.

It isn't killing religion directly, the information it is passing is perhaps "killing" religion.
Science, better yet, "knowledge" is killing religion. And it just so happens, the internet serves as the primary medium in which this material is shared.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Europe began secularizing long before the internet came into existence. I'd suggest that the internet has had a marginal effect (at most) on the overall trend.

Perhaps to the overall population, but younger people spend more time on the internet than anyone and I expect the numbers of atheists to grow exponentially as a result.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I've seen a few articles suggesting the same thing. This is not a particularly insightful article, but an interesting topic nonetheless. I would argue that the internet itself is not killing religion, but the information (science, news, alternative views and lifestyles) it provides all day every day, is the eroding religious norms and pushing otherwise unsaid truths into the public view.


Is the Internet killing religion? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

What are these unsaid truths that kill religion?

The internet is just a medium.

It isn't killing religion directly, the information it is passing is perhaps "killing" religion.
Science, better yet, "knowledge" is killing religion. And it just so happens, the internet serves as the primary medium in which this material is shared.

How does knowledge kill religion? I've heard plenty of ersatz intellectuals claim these things but they never give an explanation. What is this new truth that has just recently been promulgated to the masses?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I most certainly agree. It was clear to me, in my lifetime, that there was a move from blindly, doggedly religious toward rationally religious long before the internet was even a thought bubble in some wonks' minds.

CS Lewis has a great quote on this subject, but I've been unable to find it. He basically states that it's both a good and a bad thing. In the past, the vast majority didn't have a deep understanding of their faith, but they were still able to live moral lives because the shared moral framework of Christianity provided everyone with a basic "script" that didn't require a philosophy degree to grasp and follow.

Now that liberalism has secularized the West, that script is gone, but the democratization of information has made it far easier to learn than it's ever been previously. So where before, an elite few were called to philosophize and set an example by which the common man should live, now every man must become a philosopher, lest he become a slave to his passions. It's a boon for someone like me (and many others who post here), but when I look at the state of the lower classes in America right now, I can't say that we're better off as a society.

It isn't killing religion directly, the information it is passing is perhaps "killing" religion.
Science, better yet, "knowledge" is killing religion. And it just so happens, the internet serves as the primary medium in which this material is shared.

That assumes that science and religion are generally incompatible. I'd imagine the internet, the New Athiests, Cosmos rebooted, Tyson, Nye, etc. are making it increasingly difficult for Young Earth Creationists to maintain their faith. But those forces don't really challenge theistic evolution, and yet the Catholic Church has declined at the same general rate in the West as denominations that are explicitly hostile to science.

So again, I don't see much of a correlation between the internet and secularization here. I think it's much more likely that liberalism itself, with the primacy it grants to individualism, is the real culprit. The Catholic Church is currently thriving in "illiberal" parts of the world.

Perhaps to the overall population, but younger people spend more time on the internet than anyone and I expect the numbers of atheists to grow exponentially as a result.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Liberalism is inherently secular.

 

[BobD]

Married huh?

Study: 'Jesus' wife' fragment not a fake – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

 

[gkIrish]

I personally believe that the internet, as well as other mediums, have basically taken time away from the practice of religion. Spend an hour on line as oppossed to an hour of studying the Word. So yeah... in some respects I could buy that the internet has played a roll. How big a role is debateble and probably overstated to a degree.

If anything, the internet has allowed like- minded individuals to connect more easily, thus giving credence to the views and/or beliefs they probably had to begin with.

I love Freudian typos.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Married huh?

Study: 'Jesus' wife' fragment not a fake – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Unlikely, and this unsourced scrap of parchment from 850 AD certainly doesn't throw any light on the subject. Simply shows that the topic has always been controversial within the Church.

The Harvard Theological Review also published a rebuttal by Leo Depuydt professor of Egyptology at Brown University on Thursday.

“As a forgery, it is bad to the point of being farcical or fobbish," Depuydt told the Boston Globe. "I don’t buy the argument that this is sophisticated. I think it could be done in an afternoon by an undergraduate student.”

“Substantial reasons would lead us to conclude that the papyrus is actually a clumsy counterfeit,” the Vatican’s newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said in an editorial in 2012.

King and Harvard acknowledge that "nothing is known about the discovery of the fragment." King has said it was given to her by an unnamed donor.

 

[chicago51]

I think the internet has definetely not been a friend to religion.

Though I think it is a variety of things.

I think people look for knowledge and reason for why things are the way they are and religion filled that void for the longest time. We have different ways of filling that void these days.

I don't want to turn this into another politcal thread we already have a place for that but I say this.

I read the bible semi-daily to weekly (mostly new testament), and I think spirituality has helped my mental / emotional state during some of the rougher batches of my life.

The hating of gays and other so called sinful lifestyles has turned me off by some of organized religion. I think it has for others as well.

Personally I think even if you belief that same sexual preference is a sin you don't deal with the situation through having a holier than though attitude organized religion sometimes has.

Don't you offer love first to anyone who has any sort of sinful lifestyle in hopes that they will live better? Didn't Jesus associate with supposedly worst of society according to the gospel?

Sorry for that digression guys.

 

[Irish YJ]

What are these unsaid truths that kill religion?

They are said now, but not necessarily in pre-web days. Things like child molestation, crooked ministers, church cover ups, etc.. All of these things were swept under the rug in days of old.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

They are said now, but not necessarily in pre-web days. Things like child molestation, crooked ministers, church cover ups, etc.. All of these things were swept under the rug in days of old.

So you are saying sins of the members devalue the Church?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

They are said now, but not necessarily in pre-web days. Things like child molestation, crooked ministers, church cover ups, etc.. All of these things were swept under the rug in days of old.

I think that's confusing cause and effect; Western culture has become increasingly hostile to religion over an extended period that long predates the internet. For instance, the recent sex scandals that have plagued the Church received (deservedly) massive press coverage; but the rates of molestation/ pedophilia are much higher in our public school system than they ever were in the Catholic Church, and they receive little to no press coverage. Why the disparity? Hollywood is allegedly crawling with pedophiles, but no one is calling for a witch hunt there.

And as we all know, SEC players get away with a ton of shit that would be front-page news had a ND player done it. As Western culture has secularized, anything related to religion has lost the benefit of the doubt, and must now justify itself publicly. That puts religious institutions under heightened scrutiny, and when misdeeds are uncovered, everyone nods along as if to say, "Yup, we knew those hypocrites were a bad lot."

 

[Buster Bluth]

What are these unsaid truths that kill religion?

For a lot of people it's the similarities between other religious stories and what's in the Bible. For me the internet was a great place to find a myriad of observations about religion that I didn't get around to asking yet. I remember discussing in like third grade the idea of "doing God's will" or whatever, and then Sam Harris pointed out "yeah a terrorist feels that he's doing that before he blows himself up. Which of you is wrong?"

Or pointing out that the single biggest event in the spread of Christianity, Constantine the Great adopting the religion, happened because he won a battle after he put crosses on his shields. "Does that sound even remotely like something Jesus, the ultimate pacifist, would ask you to do for him?"

How does knowledge kill religion?

It depends what religion you are I guess.

For me, knowledge of the fact that Judiasm doesn't share Christianity's beliefs when it comes to the Devil or heaven is a big one. That, and that Christianity fails the slavery question (as well as the racial and sex equality issues).

Seeing "unicorn" mentioned nine times in the King James bible (mind you, perfectly translated due to the Holy Spirit's presence) was another big one. Wut. Or the mass genocides, rape, etc that happen in the OT, or someone pointing out the OT stories that were just taken from Indus/Babylonian cultures when the Jews were in Babylon, or that there is no evidence that Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt (or that something like rape isn't on the Ten Commandments).

Lately I've been exploring the idea that Native Americans lived for thousands of years never having received any sort of sign whatsoever about the existence of God or Jesus. Then the guy who does discover them happens to be a incorrigible POS whose first journal entry upon leaving was, to paraphrase, "I think we just found a bunch of slaves..." only to see 100% of Caribbean natives butchered and 90% of the rest succumb to smallpox/measles/etc. Why did God make a bunch of genetically inferior (if you grade on a curve) humans, not reveal himself to them even once, and have a man on the direct opposite end of the spectrum from Jesus be the guy to introduce His word?

Knowledge like that shoots holes in the idea of Christianity being anything more than any other fairy tale, for me at least. Whiskey will be around to correct this and toss free will into the picture here in a minute. haha

 

[Cackalacky]

Internet? No. It is a tool. And just like all other tools it must be used and adopted and modified by the user. Religion is not suffering because of the internet itself. That's like saying the library of Alexandria killed religion.

What really kills religion is when the dogma ceases to wield any control over a person. How that comes about is of many sources and circumstances.

 

[loomis41973]

Science

 

[Cackalacky]

Science

Please no.

 

[NDBoiler]

I don't think it is killing religion per se unless you are on the internet looking to further your beliefs either for or against it. Since the advent of the internet, I am not searching for information to alter my religious beliefs, nor do I care what is on the internet contrary to my religious beliefs. That's the point - they're my beliefs regardless of what anyone says on the internet. That brings up another point - the internet is indeed valuable for information, but it is also a medium for anyone to share anything, regardless of it being verifiable or substantiated.

Probably where it can have the most profound effect is on the young of our time who will be living their formative years not knowing a world where the internet did not exist. As a byproduct of this, is also the greatest problem as well, in that I get the impression that a lot of young people take most everything on the internet as absolute truth and don't question it. It's a paradox of sorts where the older pre-internet generations will question the world around them and go to the internet to supplement their knowledge while the younger seem likely to start their knowledge base on the internet and proceed no further in their knowledge development. It's kind of sad to think about where one day in the next 100 years or so there will be no one who knows what life was like pre-internet. I think it will ultimately result in a gradual breakdown of self reliance in seeking knowledge and thinking for oneself. For all its advantages, it certainly has its pitfalls as well.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't think it is killing religion per se unless you are on the internet looking to further your beliefs either for or against it. Since the advent of the internet, I am not searching for information to alter my religious beliefs, nor do I care what is on the internet contrary to my religious beliefs. That's the point - they're my beliefs regardless of what anyone says on the internet. That brings up another point - the internet is indeed valuable for information, but it is also a medium for anyone to share anything, regardless of it being verifiable or substantiated.

Probably where it can have the most profound effect is on the young of our time who will be living their formative years not knowing a world where the internet did not exist. As a byproduct of this, is also the greatest problem as well, in that I get the impression that a lot of young people take most everything on the internet as absolute truth and don't question it. It's a paradox of sorts where the older pre-internet generations will question the world around them and go to the internet to supplement their knowledge while the younger seem likely to start their knowledge base on the internet and proceed no further in their knowledge development. It's kind of sad to think about where one day in the next 100 years or so there will be no one who knows what life was like pre-internet. I think it will ultimately result in a gradual breakdown of self reliance in seeking knowledge and thinking for oneself. For all its advantages, it certainly has its pitfalls as well.

The bolded is a huge assumption that I don't believe is true, and it's kinda funny coming from the someone who says: "I am not searching for information to alter my religious beliefs."

I also don't know what "self reliance in seeking knowledge" is. The centers of progress in civilization have been in places where people can share ideas, either in the center of a civilization or in the crossroads of trade. Whereas we once had these great centers of thought (e.g. Babylon, Alexandria, Baghdad, Rome, etc etc) we can now have those conversations anywhere. You can literally know anything if you look in the right spot on the internet, and it's exponentially easier if it's crowdsourced.

Hell I think it's weird that there will be a time when people don't remember not knowing something haha Pete Holmes puts it best:

Pete Holmes on Conan (HD) - YouTube

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

For a lot of people it's the similarities between other religious stories and what's in the Bible. For me the internet was a great place to find a myriad of observations about religion that I didn't get around to asking yet. I remember discussing in like third grade the idea of "doing God's will" or whatever, and then 1. Sam Harris pointed out "yeah a terrorist feels that he's doing that before he blows himself up. Which of you is wrong?"

2. Or pointing out that the single biggest event in the spread of Christianity, Constantine the Great adopting the religion, happened because he won a battle after he put crosses on his shields. "Does that sound even remotely like something Jesus, the ultimate pacifist, would ask you to do for him?"



It depends what religion you are I guess.

3. For me, knowledge of the fact that Judiasm doesn't share Christianity's beliefs when it comes to the Devil or heaven is a big one. That, and that Christianity fails the slavery question (as well as the racial and sex equality issues).

4. Seeing "unicorn" mentioned nine times in the King James bible (mind you, perfectly translated due to the Holy Spirit's presence) was another big one. Wut.

5. Or the mass genocides, rape, etc that happen in the OT,

6. or someone pointing out the OT stories that were just taken from Indus/Babylonian cultures when the Jews were in Babylon, or that there is no evidence that Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt (or that something like rape isn't on the Ten Commandments).

7. Lately I've been exploring the idea that Native Americans lived for thousands of years never having received any sort of sign whatsoever about the existence of God or Jesus. Then the guy who does discover them happens to be a incorrigible POS whose first journal entry upon leaving was, to paraphrase, "I think we just found a bunch of slaves..." only to see 100% of Caribbean natives butchered and 90% of the rest succumb to smallpox/measles/etc. Why did God make a bunch of genetically inferior (if you grade on a curve) humans, not reveal himself to them even once, and have a man on the direct opposite end of the spectrum from Jesus be the guy to introduce His word?

Knowledge like that shoots holes in the idea of Christianity being anything more than any other fairy tale, for me at least. Whiskey will be around to correct this and toss free will into the picture here in a minute. haha

1. So the idea that many people can fervently believe they are right proves that none are right and all are wrong? That isn't sound logic.

2. You'll have to help me out with this. You're saying that Jesus told Constantine to do that? Or that Constantine claimed it and that's what devalues Christianity? Assuming Constantine did claim that, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that atrocities committed by members of any group shouldn't necessarily be held against that group. Further, Jesus was only a pacifist when it came to his own life. When people defiled the Jewish temple, Christ grabbed a whip and chased them out. Perhaps we just have a different conception of who Jesus was.

3. Christianity is viewed by you as Judaism 2.0? Perhaps because they took the Torah, created an Old Testament and used the scriptures created Post Christ as the fulfillment of God's word, calling it the New Testament? The general understanding is that Christ came to fulfill and lead people to an ultimate Truth and Christ's words were used in the development of these ideas (Heaven and Satan). I may just be failing to understand the problem, why is this an issue?

As to the slavery, racial and sexual equality questions that are failed. What are these questions and what is the right answer being used?

4. This was found doing a quick search: Unicorn — described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22), R.V., “wild ox,” marg., “ox-antelope;” 24:8; Isa. 34:7, R.V., “wild oxen”), and untamable (Job 39:9). It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered (reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius (“primitive ox”), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar (Gal. Bel., vi.28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended

Another source mentioned that the word was the tragic failure of literality. The greek word had the meaning, "One horn" and was thusly translated to "Unicorn" in english, which has the modern association of a mythical creature so everyone assumes our conception of unicorn is equivalent to what the greek intended.

5. This is a difficult one, which I have also battled with.

6. If something was a historical event, it would make sense for it to be similar in many stories. Further, it makes sense that any nomadic group of people would adopt the stories of the culture and incorporate them into their understanding of the world.

7. Finally, something worth talking about although not necessarily in the way you portrayed it. Your argument hear is a recycled argument from Constantine. Why would God use X because they were evil or not in perfect alignment with the Christ image we understand? But to answer your questions: these humans weren't genetically inferior, their adaptive immunity hadn't been exposed to what the rest of the world was transmitting and sharing for a number of centuries. Are you irritated that they were isolated? Or that they weren't given some supernatural protection from the evil in the world? If someone hadn't heard of Christ or the Church, then it would be hoped (and I'm guessing believed) that sufficient grace would cover them insomuch as their actions in life allowed. It would have to be believed that God's word would stand on it's own despite the introducer. Not a great first introduction but hardly a reason to cut the legs out from a whole theology.

Most of these "issues" you've brought up can be wrestled with and defeated. There are broader issues that I find myself wrestling with specifically evil in the world and pain. I haven't found a true defense yet but I have much more to read. I've been told to read C.S Lewis' "Problem of Pain", Peter Kreeft's "Summa of the Summa" and the early Church Father's writings. I'm going to exhaust every resource before I decide what I can and can't deal with in a religion.

Internet? No. It is a tool. And just like all other tools it must be used and adopted and modified by the user. Religion is not suffering because of the internet itself. That's like saying the library of Alexandria killed religion.

What really kills religion is when the dogma ceases to wield any control over a person. How that comes about is of many sources and circumstances.

I can't extract the intent of this sentence. Do you perceive dogma to be an inherently evil or negative thing?

 

[Cackalacky]

I can't extract the intent of this sentence. Do you perceive dogma to be an inherently evil or negative thing?

No dogmas are not inherently evil or negative.

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology, nationalism or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities (wiki definition)

When one learns things, experiences things or sees things that begin to contradict the principles established by an authority one must reconcile these contradictions with the dogma or reject them there by rejecting a bit of the authority. Some things can be irreconcilable. Enough of these irreconcilibilities and the dogma can cease to have use or purpose or new, more useful dogmas can emerge. It is the basis for the evolution of virtually all societies (anthropological speaking).

 

[AdmiralBackhand]

1. So the idea that many people can fervently believe they are right proves that none are right and all are wrong? That isn't sound logic.

2. You'll have to help me out with this. You're saying that Jesus told Constantine to do that? Or that Constantine claimed it and that's what devalues Christianity? Assuming Constantine did claim that, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that atrocities committed by members of any group shouldn't necessarily be held against that group. Further, Jesus was only a pacifist when it came to his own life. When people defiled the Jewish temple, Christ grabbed a whip and chased them out. Perhaps we just have a different conception of who Jesus was.

3. Christianity is viewed by you as Judaism 2.0? Perhaps because they took the Torah, created an Old Testament and used the scriptures created Post Christ as the fulfillment of God's word, calling it the New Testament? The general understanding is that Christ came to fulfill and lead people to an ultimate Truth and Christ's words were used in the development of these ideas (Heaven and Satan). I may just be failing to understand the problem, why is this an issue?

As to the slavery, racial and sexual equality questions that are failed. What are these questions and what is the right answer being used?

4. This was found doing a quick search: Unicorn — described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22), R.V., “wild ox,” marg., “ox-antelope;” 24:8; Isa. 34:7, R.V., “wild oxen”), and untamable (Job 39:9). It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered (reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius (“primitive ox”), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar (Gal. Bel., vi.28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended

Another source mentioned that the word was the tragic failure of literality. The greek word had the meaning, "One horn" and was thusly translated to "Unicorn" in english, which has the modern association of a mythical creature so everyone assumes our conception of unicorn is equivalent to what the greek intended.

5. This is a difficult one, which I have also battled with.

6. If something was a historical event, it would make sense for it to be similar in many stories. Further, it makes sense that any nomadic group of people would adopt the stories of the culture and incorporate them into their understanding of the world.

7. Finally, something worth talking about although not necessarily in the way you portrayed it. Your argument hear is a recycled argument from Constantine. Why would God use X because they were evil or not in perfect alignment with the Christ image we understand? But to answer your questions: these humans weren't genetically inferior, their adaptive immunity hadn't been exposed to what the rest of the world was transmitting and sharing for a number of centuries. Are you irritated that they were isolated? Or that they weren't given some supernatural protection from the evil in the world? If someone hadn't heard of Christ or the Church, then it would be hoped (and I'm guessing believed) that sufficient grace would cover them insomuch as their actions in life allowed. It would have to be believed that God's word would stand on it's own despite the introducer. Not a great first introduction but hardly a reason to cut the legs out from a whole theology.

Most of these "issues" you've brought up can be wrestled with and defeated. There are broader issues that I find myself wrestling with specifically evil in the world and pain. I haven't found a true defense yet but I have much more to read. I've been told to read C.S Lewis' "Problem of Pain", Peter Kreeft's "Summa of the Summa" and the early Church Father's writings. I'm going to exhaust every resource before I decide what I can and can't deal with in a religion.



I can't extract the intent of this sentence. Do you perceive dogma to be an inherently evil or negative thing?

Reps.