Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:09PM, SeraphimR wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 9:20PM, jlb32168 wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 7:24PM, ted08721 wrote:

The problem is that sisters are thinking for themselves, no one says it in those words, but that’s the bottom line: you’re thinking for yourself, and we don’t like that.

“Thinking for themselves” [???] – they say nothing appreciably different from one another, Ted.  You and they are being indoctrinated and inculcated just as much as anyone else and the fact that you don’t know this is astounding and frightening at once.

It’s odd how we consider two sides of an argument, reject one for the other, and take rest and solace in the fact that we’re “thinking for ourselves”.  Those over there are “drinking the Kool-Aid”, however.

The fact is that we’re no different.  Each group has just picked a different flavor.

So true.  Indoctrination has gotten pretty subtle.  Progressives are so brainwashed they think they derived progressive positions for themselves.

They have all taken the blue pill.  Western civilization is collapsing around them, and they deem it "progress".

Fortunately they are contracepting and aborting and transgendering themselves into extinction.  It will be the descendents of traditionalists who inherit the earth.  It is ironic, being that they are so keen on Darwin.

I sometimes think that I shouldn't point this out to them, but progressives are incapable of facing simple facts that contradict their ideology.  They are too frightened by the idea that they might entertain a sexist or homophobic thought.  The censorship is built deeply, deeply into their psyches and yet they assert they think for themselves!

We're being ignored.  I guess that's what happens when you interject facts into a discussion where Progressives outnumber their unsophisticated and provincially thinking brethren.  And they thought traditionalists are the ones immune to evidence.

Oh well.

Apr 29, 2012 -- 3:36PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Apr 29, 2012 -- 2:52PM, jlb32168 wrote:

We're being ignored.  I guess that's what happens when you interject facts into a discussion where Progressives outnumber their unsophisticated and provincially thinking brethren.  And they thought traditionalists are the ones immune to evidence.

Oh well.

Seems like the discussion has reached the level of

"You're brainwashed" 

"No. You're brainwashed"

"Well, you're more brainwashed"

"No, you're so brainwashed you can't tell you're brainwashed!"

At which point it's time to move on.

Actually, I injected some demographics as an example of the reality that brainwashed progressives can't see.  In fact, it looks like you didn't see it.  A nugget of evidence that is invisible.  (If you can't see the fnords they can't hurt you.)

I guess the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.  I am getting on in years, but I remember a prediction that the last Episcopalian will die in a couple of decades.  As far as I am concerned, the handwritting is on the wall so far as the demographic demise of progressive Christianity.

I hope progressives don't notice it, as a people tends to lash out violently when confronted with this reality.

SeraphimR"

(Progressives) "... have all taken the blue pill.  Western civilization is collapsing around them, and they deem it "progress".

Fortunately they are contracepting and aborting and transgendering themselves into extinction.  It will be the descendents of traditionalists who inherit the earth.  It is ironic, being that they are so keen on Darwin."

Who is this "they" that is contracepting" ?

The most significant  markers for high birth rates are poverty and ignorance, not a difference in progressive vs "traditional" religious attitudes about contraception and abortion. (I doubt transgendering is a significant factor in birth rates, either way.)

UN data indicates birth rates (per thousand) in the U.S. and Australia at 14, with UK and Canada following at 12 and 11 respectively.  Surely we will agree that these are the countries with populations most influenced by the Anglican Lambeth Conference statements of 1930 and 1958 which ultimately conclude that contraception is properly a matter between God and the conscience(s) of parents.

Rates for Catholic Italy, Poland, Austria and Portugal are in a range of 9 to 11 (in spite of the Roman Church labelling of contraception as "intrinsically evil" in every circumstance).

Orthodox Russia (12), Ukraine (11) and Greece (10) are roughly on par with what are arguably the most progressive countries in Europe (generally the Scandinavian countries).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...

It's  worth noting that the Orthodox teaching on contraception is not consistent with Catholic teaching, and is actually much closer to the Anglican understanding:

From the "Bases of the social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church":

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

At the same time, spouses are responsible before God for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time. However, Christian spouses should remember the words of St. Paul addressed to them: «Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency» (1 Cor. 7:5). Clearly, spouses should make such decisions mutually on the counsel of their spiritual father. The latter should take into account, with pastoral prudence, the concrete living conditions of the couple, their age, health, degree of spiritual maturity and many other circumstances. In doing so, he should distinguish those who can hold the high demands of continence from those to whom it is not given (Mt. 19:11), taking care above all of the preservation and consolidation of the family.

orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

(The Orthodox statement indicates a somewhat more lenient attitude (compared to RCC) for abortion when the life of the mother is endangered by pregnancy.)

And the Anglicans:

"The 1930 resolution was greeted with mixed reactions and read

'Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method'

but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence

'that the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles.'

By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was a way of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents 'in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife'"

www.churchofengland.org/our-views/medica...

The practice of contraception is clearly a "way of life" among most Catholics and Orthodox, just as the Anglicans  acknowledge on their own account.

Whether the descendants of traditionalists will "inherit the earth" remains to be seen. The pattern I see is a gradual decline in "traditionalism". I don't see change coming to the Roman Church heirarchy, probably not to the Orthodox either, and I personally  think those who are waiting for the kind of changes they need should instead learn to trust their own conscience(s) and move on. If all the Roman Catholics is the U.S. who practice contraception would simply leave the Roman Church and go elsewhere, the traditionalists can be happy in their little enclaves and the majority can find a place where they really fit.  Of course, the traditionalists then will have to adapt to a new level of influence (or lack of influence), with total enrollment something less that the Southern Baptists (in theU.S.)

I really believe that the monarchial style is done (not that it won't persist as a quaint remnant, like the Amish perhaps).  People will no longer accept religious "rulers" any more than the English would accept Eliabeth II in the role of Elizabeth I. The Church may not want to change, but mankind has changed and God will have a church (in some form) to facilitate the service and love between God and an everchanging mankind. 

May 1, 2012 -- 1:04PM, SeraphimR wrote:

I do endorse your suggestion that the Progressives go off and form their own religious organizations.  It is my strategy that the traditional remnant should hunker down and wait out the coming collapse.  Large families with many children will be able to carry on after the collapse of social security.  The children will support the parents and the traditions will be passed on to the grandchildren.  Childless progressives will have a much harder time and no one to pass their values onto.

You believe that mankind has somehow "changed" in some irreversible way.  That is the essence of progressive philosophy.  I think this idea is terribly flawed.  The natural, God given if you will, order is hierarchical.

I don't see a feasible path to sustain industrial civilizations.  When the electricity goes out, who are going to survive, the Amish or the Episcopalians?

In 5 or so years of weekly attendance at Mass in numerous US locations including a small city in upstate New York, a medium-sized city in Texas, a very large city in Texas (at different parishes, some conservative, some progressive), and a small city in Pennsylvania, I didn't see ANY large families. 3 or 4 kids was the max, and a family with 4 kids was very rare. 

One thing about religious values is that it can at least sometimes give people good moral values that lead them to act more responsibly and with concern for others in mind. And part of that is not making the decision to have more children than you can afford (not only financially, but physically and emotionally) support. Maybe the "1 percent" can afford big families, but most folks stop at 1, 2 or 3, usually because they are responsible people. And that's a good thing. For those who want to and can afford it, sure they can have 7, 8 or 9 kids or whatever. But the reality is that there are very few people who want that today.

One additional comment, if an institution has to rely on high reproductive rates to keep the instution alive, rather than having ideas and values that draw people to it, what does that say about the institution and its chances for long-term survival in a free society?

May 1, 2012 -- 8:30PM, WaveringCC wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 8:02PM, newsjunkie wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:04PM, SeraphimR wrote:

In 5 or so years of weekly attendance at Mass in numerous US locations including a small city in upstate New York, a medium-sized city in Texas, a very large city in Texas (at different parishes, some conservative, some progressive), and a small city in Pennsylvania, I didn't see ANY large families. 3 or 4 kids was the max, and a family with 4 kids was very rare. 

One thing about religious values is that it can at least sometimes give people good moral values that lead them to act more responsibly and with concern for others in mind. And part of that is not making the decision to have more children than you can afford (not only financially, but physically and emotionally) support. Maybe the "1 percent" can afford big families, but most folks stop at 1, 2 or 3, usually because they are responsible people. And that's a good thing. For those who want to and can afford it, sure they can have 7, 8 or 9 kids or whatever. But the reality is that there are very few people who want that today.

One additional comment, if an institution has to rely on high reproductive rates to keep the instution alive, rather than having ideas and values that draw people to it, what does that say about the institution and its chances for long-term survival in a free society?

This latest round of exchanges is more than a bit amusing (and that's putting it as diplomatically as possible. What next?  Stockpiling  5 years of food like the Mormons?  Going off the grid? Don't forget the shotgun....Interesting too that the poorest countries of the world are those with the highest birth rates, but, let's not worry too much about facts).

I don't pretend to be an expert on the Orthodox church (although some who know almost nothing about Roman Catholicism seem to feel well qualified to comment on matters of which they are clearly ignorant, but.... again, facts don't get in the way of some people's ideas).

Purely anecdotal observation. But....my closest friend for the last 30 years is an Orthodox woman.  Through her I have met MANY Orthodox families - at her church events (I have attended many liturgies - normal Sunday liturgies, and many special - Orthodox Easter, baptisms, weddings, funerals, feast days, , etc plus the Village Festivals twice/year to be supportive. Anything for homemade baklava....), and have also been included in many  family events (of the 250 guests at her son's wedding, maybe 35 or so guests weren't Orthodox). I have yet to meet even one Orthodox family with more than 3 kids. Not one.  Most of her relatives and friends have 2 children. Her family is considered to be "big" in her church because she has 3 children (as do my husband and I).

The birth rate in Russia is 1.3/woman.  In Greece it is 1.4/woman.  Both "tradional" Orthodox countries.  In France it is 2.0/woman.  In "progressive" Denmark it is 1.9/woman and in even more "progressive" Sweden and Norway it is 2.0 and in Iceland it is 2.2.  In the US it is 2.1 (the "replacement" rate) and in the UK it is 1.9. In many poor African countries it is between 4.8 and 6.4/woman (Uganda). (Data: 2010 Fertility rate, total (births per woman), World Bank)

Come to my parish.  We have one family with nine children, and several with four or five.

In progressive Demark, the fertility is 1.9, but in 2006 it was 1.72, in Sweden 1.65, UK 1.64

The increase you see is due to Muslim's higher fertility.

The Orthodox may not make it.  It is Evangelicals who support the 2.1 replacement rate in the US.  I am doing my bit to encourage the traditional to eschew secularist philosophy of low fertility.