Teens Fleeing Religion at Record Pace

[GG]

I appreciate the depth of this post, but I was actual just asking what tinder was.

 

It's an online hookup site for millennials.

[birdog1960]

 

I thought it was quite a good attempt, actually (explained below).

 

Teens, as well as people in my generation (for those of you who don't know, that would be 20-somethings), are "fleeing religion" for a number of reasons, two I think being principal:

 

1. They don't see the need for something to worship. This is because they have filled this void with two things: sex and themselves. The extreme vanity and promiscuity that exist in these age cohorts is stunning when compared with previous generations. This is where Greg's joke comes in: Tinder is the perfect combination of the two trendy gods that teens and 20-somethings love to bow to. You craft an image of yourself in such a way that not only are you lying to the people you're advertising to, but you're also lying to yourself about how wonderful you look and are. Then you shop around for people who have done the exact same thing; swipe right to try and bone them, swipe left to dispose of them. Teens and 20-somethings dislike prudence, self-restraint, and humility, so they worship the things that are opposed to them.

 

2. Teens and 20-somethings suffer from a way of thinking that C.S. Lewis brilliantly coined "chronological snobbery": the "uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited." Ask your typical teen or 20-something atheist why they believe there is no god and they will not give you even a coherent response, much less a well-reasoned one. Atheism and its various forms are trendy and popular among internet warriors and give the teen and 20-something the false sense that they are much more common and much more intellectually grounded than any sort of theism. They reject theism, then, not because they have reasoned there is no god, but because they have decided that that is what their generation thinks and therefore they should think it also.

 

It is worth pointing out that chronological snobbery gives birth to all sorts of leftist thought and the like, but that is a topic for another thread.

this is certainly much of the problem. another is the "superman" issue. many millenials have no inkling of their own mortality. they haven't been gravely ill in most instances and can't forsee that ever happening. even in less serious issures such as finances, they haven't experienced calamity as they are often bailed out by their parents. many belive they are teflon covered....until they are not. then they go looking for answers religion should be around for them then as well as before.

[LeviF]

this is certainly much of the problem. another is the "superman" issue. many millenials have no inkling of their own mortality. they haven't been gravely ill in most instances and can't forsee that ever happening. even in less serious issures such as finances, they haven't experienced calamity as they are often bailed out by their parents. many belive they are teflon covered....until they are not. then they go looking for answers religion should be around for them then as well as before.

 

I think you're on to something with the superman mentality. People that came of age in the 1960s and 70s were also very skeptical of religion (maybe not to this level, but still) and now we're seeing that age cohort flocking to church again. Maybe this will be the new pattern: teens, 20-somethings, and 30-somethings having little to no religious convictions and 40-somethings and up having much more religious conviction on the whole. Time will tell.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I think you're on to something with the superman mentality. People that came of age in the 1960s and 70s were also very skeptical of religion (maybe not to this level, but still) and now we're seeing that age cohort flocking to church again. Maybe this will be the new pattern: teens, 20-somethings, and 30-somethings having little to no religious convictions and 40-somethings and up having much more religious conviction on the whole. Time will tell.

 

If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and liberal, you have no brain. Isn't that how the expression goes?

 

At least with the 20 somethings that I hang out with and work with, there are very few straight up atheists. Many more tend to be agnostic or just completely uninterested in anything that runs counter to materialistic based sciences / view points. Still, I've met very few that believe "this" is all there is to life. Those seem to run counter to one another, yet it doesn't bump them.

 

But on the left coast, and in the entertainment industry, that's probably not reflective of the population as a whole.

[....lybob]

 

If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and liberal, you have no brain. Isn't that how the expression goes?

 

At least with the 20 somethings that I hang out with and work with, there are very few straight up atheists. Many more tend to be agnostic or just completely uninterested in anything that runs counter to materialistic based sciences / view points. Still, I've met very few that believe "this" is all there is to life. Those seem to run counter to one another, yet it doesn't bump them.

 

But on the left coast, and in the entertainment industry, that's probably not reflective of the population as a whole.

A lot of young people come back to the church when they start a family - I think for a variety of reasons this up coming generation might be delayed 3-5 years in starting a family

[birdog1960]

A lot of young people come back to the church when they start a family - I think for a variety of reasons this up coming generation might be delayed 3-5 years in starting a family

interesting observation. as i mentioned in another thread, i'm a Godfather to several nieces and nephews. and their parents generally had little to do with any church prior to the baptism of their first kid (some still don't). i interpret it as them hedging their bets: they don't want to take a chance on their kids meeting their maker unbaptized. they want to do everything they casn for them. and in a way, that's what it's all about - love.

[unbillievable]

A lot of young people come back to the church when they start a family - I think for a variety of reasons this up coming generation might be delayed 3-5 years in starting a family

 

Might also be part of the feminist backlash from older men refusing to get married as well as young Millennials (in general) avoiding marriage altogether. Unmarried single parents aren't exactly drawn to religion.

[....lybob]

interesting observation. as i mentioned in another thread, i'm a Godfather to several nieces and nephews. and their parents generally had little to do with any church prior to the baptism of their first kid (some still don't). i interpret it as them hedging their bets: they don't want to take a chance on their kids meeting their maker unbaptized. they want to do everything they casn for them. and in a way, that's what it's all about - love.

btw not everybody goes to church for religious reasons, I've known a few people who were agnostic but went to church for community or more cynically - networking

[unbillievable]

btw not everybody goes to church for religious reasons, I've known a few people who were agnostic but went to church for community or more cynically - networking

How about to meet women?

[IDBillzFan]

i interpret it as them hedging their bets: they don't want to take a chance on their kids meeting their maker unbaptized. they want to do everything they casn for them. and in a way, that's what it's all about - love.

 

I think that's exactly what it is. When my son was born, my wife started talking about having him baptized. When I started prodding her on it, she ultimately admitted she was concerned what would happen to our son if he died at a young age.

 

Growing up, my belief in God was a like my belief in Santa when I was a kid; not 100% sure he existed, but not willing to find out the hard way.

 

Ultimately my wife was able to understand that if there was a God and there was a hell, he surely would not send our baby there simply because his parents didn't have him baptized. Being baptized is simply a way to symbolize washing away your old self in your commitment to follow Christ. A 2-month old baby has no ability to rationalize that.

btw not everybody goes to church for religious reasons, I've known a few people who were agnostic but went to church for community or more cynically - networking

 

Which is why Barry ended up at Reverend Wright's church.

[....lybob]

How about to meet women?

the people I was thinking of were couples in their early 40s at the time but sure some are looking for mates - there's a Bread of life church in the south towns that is pretty famous for getting unemployed alcoholics and drug addicts straitened out and married.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Ultimately my wife was able to understand that if there was a God and there was a hell, he surely would not send our baby there simply because his parents didn't have him baptized. Being baptized is simply a way to symbolize washing away your old self in your commitment to follow Christ. A 2-month old baby has no ability to rationalize that.

 

Which is why most evangelicals practice adult baptism.

[birdog1960]

 

Which is why most evangelicals practice adult baptism.

then what of original sin? does their theology suggest a special dispensation for unbaptized children? i'm not saying that Catholic theology on the subject is necessarily correct http://www.interfaithfamily.com/life_cycle/pregnancy_and_birth_ceremonies/Is_Heaven_Denied_to_an_Unbaptized_Child_Advice_and_Perspective_for_Catholic_Parents_Who_Are_Raising_Their_Children_within_Judaism.shtml but it would seem to take some doctrinal gymnastics to get to only baptizing adults for literal interpreters of the bible.

 

The Church today believes in the interpretation of Scripture--both the Hebrew and Christian texts. So, for example, when we read Genesis we do not take the stories of creation as described in chapters 1 and 2 as literal descriptions of the historical creation of the world. We see them as faith stories that have a message but use the myths and stories of ancient times. In other words, we interpret the text. This principle of interpretation is common to many Jewish traditions and Christian ones as well. Thus, the interpretation of Christian Scriptures and the words of Jesus allow us to understand the meaning of the text in a different manner. We do not see the aforementioned passage from John's Gospel as physically requiring a baptism. It needs to be seen in the wider context of all of Jesus' teaching in which he speaks of God's universal salvific will. This newer interpretation is a part of the common understanding of the Catholic Church today. We believe that God saves all peoples, not only Christians.

Edited July 7, 2015 by birdog1960

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

then what of original sin? does their theology suggest a special dispensation for unbaptized children? i'm not saying that Catholic theology on the subject is necessarily correct but it would seem to take some doctrinal gymnastics to get to only baptizing adults.

 

my assumption is "tough luck"

[Chef Jim]

A lot of young people come back to the church when they start a family - I think for a variety of reasons this up coming generation might be delayed 3-5 years in starting a family

 

I think this was even with my generation. I'm not sure how many teenagers attended church 40 or more years ago. I had a weekly verified out. I worked Sundays at my dad's restaurant and our Minister came in before and after service and saw me there.

 

Regardless I didn't want to go once I was a teen anyway. It bored the crap out of me and didn't serve me any purpose.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Chef Jim

[LeviF]

then what of original sin? does their theology suggest a special dispensation for unbaptized children? i'm not saying that Catholic theology on the subject is necessarily correct http://www.interfaithfamily.com/life_cycle/pregnancy_and_birth_ceremonies/Is_Heaven_Denied_to_an_Unbaptized_Child_Advice_and_Perspective_for_Catholic_Parents_Who_Are_Raising_Their_Children_within_Judaism.shtml but it would seem to take some doctrinal gymnastics to get to only baptizing adults for literal interpreters of the bible.

 

 

From what I understand about modern evangelicalism is that, in those churches, typically, only adults (or those who have come to what I'll call a "mature faith") are baptized because it's representative (that is, not required for salvation) of the new life they have committed to following God. Since babies cannot make that commitment, they do not baptize babies. Additionally, after the ascension of Jesus there is no record of babies/infants/toddlers being baptized by the apostles. Instead, adults were only baptized by immersion after they had demonstrated saving faith in Christ.

 

When it comes to issues with literal interpretations of John 3 (water and the spirit), there are answers to be had, though I won't speak as to whether they are convincing. Ezekiel 36 speaks of the promise of the New Covenant and promises a cleansing water for those under it (as a Pharisee, it is highly likely that Nicodemus had memorized Ezekiel's prophecies, and certainly knew of them). John 7 refers to the Holy Spirit within believers as living water. Though it may simply state the obvious, we do appear to come from a sack of water at birth.

 

As far as whether an unbaptized infant (or even a stillborn or miscarried child) is denied heaven, I suppose that depends on who you talk to. Most of my friends in the evangelical community appeal to the goodness of God and his demonstrable affection for children in the Bible in believing that babies who have no concept of God are admitted into paradise.

Edited July 7, 2015 by LeviF91

[birdog1960]

 

From what I understand about modern evangelicalism is that, in those churches, typically, only adults (or those who have come to what I'll call a "mature faith") are baptized because it's representative (that is, not required for salvation) of the new life they have committed to following God. Since babies cannot make that commitment, they do not baptize babies. Additionally, after the ascension of Jesus there is no record of babies/infants/toddlers being baptized by the apostles. Instead, adults were only baptized by immersion after they had demonstrated saving faith in Christ.

 

When it comes to issues with literal interpretations of John 3 (water and the spirit), there are answers to be had, though I won't speak as to whether they are convincing. Ezekiel 36 speaks of the promise of the New Covenant and promises a cleansing water for those under it (as a Pharisee, it is highly likely that Nicodemus had memorized Ezekiel's prophecies, and certainly knew of them). John 7 refers to the Holy Spirit within believers as living water. Though it may simply state the obvious, we do appear to come from a sack of water at birth.

 

As far as whether an unbaptized infant (or even a stillborn or miscarried child) is denied heaven, I suppose that depends on who you talk to. Most of my friends in the evangelical community appeal to the goodness of God and his demonstrable affection for children in the Bible in believing that babies who have no concept of God are admitted into paradise.

i follow to a degree. but how is that any less interpretive and more fundamental reading of the bible than what Catholics do on other issues? in effect, the fundamentalists are doing this: "We do not see the aforementioned passage from John's Gospel as physically requiring a baptism. It needs to be seen in the wider context of all of Jesus' teaching in which he speaks of God's universal salvific will" At least we are consistent. We believe in interpretation. In this instance it's literal interpretation only if it fits the specific purpose or dogma.

Edited July 7, 2015 by birdog1960

[LeviF]

i follow to a degree. but how is that any less interpretive and more fundamental reading of the bible than what Catholics do on other issues? At least we are consistent. We believe in interpretation. In this instance it's literal interpretation only if it fits the specific purpose or dogma.

 

I'm assuming you're talking about infant salvation. I guess the answer would be that the Bible doesn't directly speak to it in general. They can point at examples of children that were saved in infancy or in the womb (John the Baptist, David's first child with Bashsheba) and hope, I guess. I haven't met someone who claimed to know for sure.

[birdog1960]

 

I'm assuming you're talking about infant salvation. I guess the answer would be that the Bible doesn't directly speak to it in general. They can point at examples of children that were saved in infancy or in the womb (John the Baptist, David's first child with Bashsheba) and hope, I guess. I haven't met someone who claimed to know for sure.

my point, of course, is that the bible requires interpretation to have relevance and be practical in everyday life. to me the question then becomes, who is best tasked with the interpretation and what remedies are available when they get it wrong?

[LeviF]

my point, of course, is that the bible requires interpretation to have relevance and be practical in everyday life. to me the question then becomes, who is best tasked with the interpretation and what remedies are available when they get it wrong?

 

Right. Well now we're taking it back to the Reformation and the concept of sola scriptura; that interpretations of the Bible are also subject to the Bible and the Bible serves to interpret itself in many areas. A literal interpretation of the Bible is no less an interpretation than what the Catholics tend to hold - it's just, well, literal.