malkie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:13 pm
After 10 pages, here's what I'm getting, mostly from the religionist side - simplified, of course:
- there's a growing problem in society that would be fixed if more younger people come to Christ and/or participate in religious activity of some sort that promotes community values of charity/giving beyond one’s self
- here are some examples of how one religious individual has promoted community values of charity/giving beyond one’s self
- that religious person would likely have done the same if he had not been religious
- however, the examples that people see (the "fruits", if you like) of religion seem to be putting people off religion
- somehow, all of this is the fault of the non-religious
- anyway, non-religious people are not as good as religious people, because non-religious people don't have fear of god to keep them in line
Truth mixed in with fiction and/or soundbites. This is often the course taken when someone wants to carry a point without really getting into the meat of things.
First bullet point: true
Second: OK
Third: Probably, but it’s difficult to know. And over a generation or two it becomes even more difficult to ascertain.
Fourth: that’s a mixed bag. Institutional structures have steadily been taking a beating. Bad actors have not helped. But true principles contained within religious systems are then thrown out with the bathwater. Secularism takes its place. It then becomes a question of ‘fruits’ over the long haul between the principles at the core of religion or the fruits of philosophical systems of belief that take God out of the picture.
Fifth: that’s more complicated than a simple sentence/soundbite. The fault can be spread around.
Sixth: this also becomes rather more complicated/complex than a simple soundbite. For one thing, the “fear of God” may mean something different to a nonbeliever than a believer. And then among believers there will also be differing viewpoints on the same. Then we have to define ‘good’. That becomes a mixed bag too.
But I understand that this list is what ONE person is getting from the Deseret News article and the ensuing conversation. All views are of course welcome.
The point of the article is that we ALL ought to have some concern about whether or not we’re heading in the ‘right’ direction as far as civil society is concerned. Whether or not GenZ has a certain trajectory rather and/or over another. And the definition of ‘right’ is going to vary on whether or not one is neoliberal, neomarxist, libertarian, conservative, green activist, atheist, Christian/religionist of another stripe…and the list goes on.
Regards,
MG