just in case you haven't already seen it, I think you guys may like this tweet https://twitter.com/AtheismBotJP/status/1063761580079239168 It is from a Japanese account called new atheism (新無神論). Images are clear enough and no translation is needed.

amen

I knew that sooner or later the problem of Whoopie Goldberg not having a penis would come up in this discussion and it finally did. Let's see if this finally settles the question posted by me 4 pages ago, in another life and from another galaxy.

That's a useless remark. We are not in Greece and everybody in this discussion understood the meaning of the word. We shared a common definition without any problem till you arrived and we will keep doing it when you leave.

be quiet... this is a very intense conversation... Jack is talking about religion, his wife and in the last sentence of his message he said "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"... Rank amateur is trying to "completely square the circle" and is waiting for Jack to let him know how many corners he missed... meanwhile, Bitter Crank sometimes makes them talk even more... if all this is nonsense to you, go to page 3 and enjoy some nice nun's photos

I am not reading this conversation but after watching the images of the last post I feel the intellectual level is now stratosferic and all the sociopolitical problems of the Church will soon be solved. Keep writing...

OK, no problem... I wish this forum is useful for you

You don't need a forum to answer that question, a dictionary is enough. Check the meaning of those three words and you´ll get the answer but people here love talking about problems that can't be solved (freedom, God, justice...) and you probably will find one or two ready to discuss about all this.

yes, you are right, "there isn't much that can be said that will make much difference" (about Church's scandals) but there is even less about my supposed pompous response. I don't care what Jake and Rank Amateur are doing above, I am not reading them but if you say that "were discussing your topic several hours ago and it didn't go very well" I certainly believe you and you now may understand why I left that conversation (or why what you call "terminate the engagement" is the wisest thing to do because you see what's next before it happens). If people "do not share enough of your commitment to or interest" (which is OK and I am old enough to assume it without any problem) or they don't have anything to say, the best thing to do is to ignore me (and by the way, I am not in bad terms with them, I am just not in terms of any kind, good or bad).

Your advice came late, I already moved on but thanks anyway (and I don't think you are "painfully rude and undiplomatic" when you talk face-to-face with a racist, in fact it is just the other way around)

I am not reading your answers because I have nothing else to add to you. Good luck

Dear Bitter Crank, since this was my first post here, I always took for granted that if people said something, it was because they wanted to talk and/or had something to say. My mistake with Jake is not having written "I by default start to answer messages because I think people want to talk..." You then miss the point if you think what I wrote is "pompously dismissive response" but if that is the case, is there nothing to say to a person who defines the Church as a group of paedophiles? Don't you think that before pinpointing mistakes in my writing, the conversation in this forum would improve if unjust comments and generalizations like that, wich have nothing to do with reality, are first censured by sensible people like you?

I started to answer your messages because I thought you wanted to talk and had something to say but I was wrong. Saying that Argentina is a third world country, that "the clergy has proven itself to be a congregation of paedophile enablers"... and nonsensical things like that save me the time needed to talk with you any more. If you feel any kind of rancour or anger towards the Catholic Church, internet is full of places for you. Enjoy them.

I didn't know that "Catholic Charities is the 2nd leading provider of social service to the needy in the United States", I was thinking about Latin America, third world countries... but it reinforces what I was trying to say. At the same time, it is true, I myself sometimes feel that there's too much talking but it is debatable whether this is not "credible or persuasive". For people who left the Church many years ago that may not be the case but there are many other social groups out there. The Church is losing ground to the Protestants of any denomination but I haven't seen yet for instance World Youth Days with millions of people organized by them. Only the Catholic Church can do that.

On the other hand, when I said "go beyond that", I didn't mean, "let's forget" the sexual abuses cases. I of course agree with you, they should be fixed "in a decisive credible manner" and "only decisive bold action can do that". My "beyond" means "let's see the whole picture". The Church is not a congregation of paedophiles, its prestige has just been exploited by them. It is also highly debatable the statement "The Church has separated itself from the forces which could renew it" (in fact it could be a good idea to discuss about it in another thread) I rather see it as a huge organization with many forces acting at the same time within it, some of them pulling it apart, some of them making it stronger, others acting only inside... Not having a Second Vatican Council in sight doesn't mean that things are not moving or evolving within the Church. Sentences like "who am I to judge gays?" said by Pope Francis were unthinkable a few years ago. The renewal of the Church is another huge theme to talk about. I would like to have more time to do it now but I don't

less talking and more doing? I (kind of) agree with you but nobody can deny that the Church already does a lot in many countries. Besides, isn't part of its DNA to preach and talk so that, later on, those words lead to actions? The sexual abuse cases have created a lot of bad press (which is the way it has to be, they have made many big mistakes) but we should go beyond that. Sooner or later, the press will turn its attention to other issues and the Church will still be there. Thinking or commenting about what will be its role in society and how its sociopolitical side could be embeded in it is what this thread is about.

thanks for the recommendation, I downloaded the latest version of "The secular city" and it seems that it is not so dated after all, there is a forty-eighth
anniversary edition and some parts are translated into Chinese (besides, if you let me to joke, I like books that relate "religion to the Miss America Pageant, Playboy magazine, and campus sex") Its central question "How is the biblical God, who acts in history, and not just in the church, present in our history today?" is clearly related to what I say here and thinking about the "dynamic interplay between the religious and the secular" is key for this discussion but it seems it focus on the theological aspects, not the political ones. In any case, I think it has ideas to discuss in other threads like "the “resacralization” that some observers speak of is due rather to the fact that certain deep-seated religious impulses have never died. They had once remained under the radar, out of sight of cultural elites, but they are now becoming more assertive and visible. I believe one of the main reasons for the return to visibility of religion in the secular city is the enormous impact of globalization." He also mentions interesting titles in the preface. All in all, it is sobering to see how seriously he and all those authors have thought about these issues, it is a much higher level that what we can try to say in a more or less orderly way in online forums.

Thanks again for the recommendation and if you just want to have a look yourself, you can download the new edition from this den of thieves http://lib1.org/_ads/C59686EFACC6B4DDFE3969776945C09E

I basically agree with your words. Those movements in and out from the Church are constant through history and they will never stop. I feel that the evident secularization of the West has not yet been digested by the Church, it hasn't been able to find its place. It is interesting to think about this and discuss about all this and the future possibilities for the Church. On the other hand, some secularists do try to imitate or recreate the best that religion has on offer. Have you seen Alain de Botton and his "sermons", the "masses" with Leonard Cohen songs...? He clearly wants the good side of religion to be enjoyed by everybody

more than hour writing and thinking about what to say, hundreds of words written and now, do I have to explain to you what I tried to talk? Come on...

I never tried to talk about any kind of "possibility of absence in the face of the presence" but if that's what you want to discuss about, open a new thread. You will surely find other people ready to take communion with you. I don't.

Yeah, ok, maybe phrases like "...[Church's] presence in society is clear and constant in many countries" and "The Church must be in, of, for... the world or it won't be the Church" do not speak of a presence. If you want to read whatever you feel like, not the whole message or what I mean, please, go to another thread. Internet is full of "I am right-you are wrong" discussions. Enjoy them

Nobody pretend absence here but if that's the way you see it, so be it.

yes, political parties and the Church have mingled sometimes with each other and with different results. It is a possible way to find that political presence in society and it has happened many times but political parties in that sense or context look like or feel like crutches or props for the Church, nor real political structures that it can inhabit. 400-500 years ago things were much more clear: the Pope ruled and its power was immense. Now everything is much more ambiguous and it seems that it hasn't been able to find its place since 200 years ago.

The Church is a religious institution with a strong political message, it is true, but not a political institution. You miss the point and distort reality if you see things like that. It is present in the political arena but not in a structured way. They can't for instance be elected but it has a very clear political side. There is an ambivalence, a I-am-and-I-am-not-here which hasn't been able to solve.

the Church has a hierarchy, its message is politically charged... but it doesn't have a particular presence in the political arena, it seems to float around when in fact, it does many things for many people and its presence in society is clear and constant in many countries.

Schrödinger's cat agrees with you and doesn't understand what the fuss is all about.

how can the Church be non partisan but at the same time participate in the political life under classic denominations like democratic socialists, christian democrats...? Shouldn't be the political arena for the Church somewhere between the political parties, the NGOs and the state, not necessarily half-way from them. I agree with you, it of course should avoid any political cohabitation with fascists, socialist... movements but when you convey a message so politically charged (equality, human rights...) aren´t you shooting yourself on the foot if you decide that you are only an NGO with a half an hour meeting every sunday morning or a state without presence in United Nations?

yes, the world doesn't revolve around you but at the same time you are the the center of the world. Rumi said it beautifully “You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop”. Life has no purpose but this by itself creates an empty space which can be filled with one. It could be a religious life, a secular one... it doesn't matter. The moment you decide and move, you are creating the sense that so many people supposedly is searching or feel that it is missing in life but in fact it was right there, so close to them that they didn't see it.

You asked everybody "is Economics a science?" and then added "why do we have to refer to economics as an actual science anyway?", answering and closing yourself the debate.

yes, economics is not a very good science but, which one is good? Physics which doesn't know what is made of 90% of the universe? Medicine, which can't find a cure for the common cold and many other diseases after decades trying?... Your comment seems to be not so much about economics as to politics.

The Church must be in, of, for... the world or it won't be the Church and yes, it is tricky to do so many things well. Taking into account the social movements without, at the same time, being drawn into their fights, failures and internal dynamics is also very tricky but this is something to think about once you have jumped into the pool. The issue to discuss here was: should it first jump? and if so, where? We know that it can't be partisan, it can't be in any left-wing, right-wing... party so, if a political structure should be in place, which one?

opportunities for convenient and reckless fooling around never diminish, look at Trump, his age, what he does... frivolity never gets tiresome, go to a resort for old people, look how the sing mindless songs, play childish games... saying "well, there are external and internal factors" is saying nothing but the question of the debate was not very good, to start with, and maybe your answer was the only meaningful thing you can say about it

it loos like a question for psychiatrists, not philosophers