Ironically, in the Bible, there is a verse that talks about taking the narrow path…the path to Christianity.
I tend to think that these days the narrow path is towards an a-religious mindset.
The Question is: How many people are completely a-religious / atheistic compared to believers? And how about in the United States…what would be the comparison? I would think athiests constitute the smallest percentage, but comparatively more intellectuals (people with degrees, think tanks, etc.)
If this is the case, to the Religious Right recognize the irony? Now that the balance of power resides with them, does thier religion still have the same meaning as it did when it was a small, struggling movement at the turn of the century? They say absolute power corrupts absolutely…
In the UK, active Christianity is dwindling at 8% (with all kinds of ‘spiritual’ bollocks taking its place). owever, some 71% still identify themselves as Christian rather than stating nothing/“no religion”.
As is common here, this scripture is not used correctly, and taken out of it’s context.
It’s not as if the percentage of atheists ve theists in Jesus’s day was oriented towards an atheist society----and now some 2000 years ago the theists have the upper hand [in the percentage of the population]. (as is the OP’s assertion)
The theists have always had “the balance of power.”
Jesus point was those who were willing to adhere to God’s requirements, live their life accordingingly vs those who would not. Among those who would not, he is not implying that they would be atheists----in fact the next verses say,
Jesus was making a distinction between those would follow his commands correctly, and with sincerity, vs those who would not. Those who would not would choose not to, although some of them would appear to be sincere.
The parallel account says this:
Does this sound like atheists he is talking about? Jesus was a Jew. During his life it was not “small, struggling movement at the turn of the century.” Religions, of every stripe, were wll established for thousands of years by that point. And those religions were intertwined with governments for centuries before and after he uttered those words. Religion has always held sway in man’s affairs.
At any rate, in this account Jesus is making a disctinction between those practicing religion correctly and those who would not. There is no mention of atheism in this account, either implicitly or explicitly.
Go ahead and make your point. But these texts do not.
You are correct, I chose to focus on the common perception rather than the actual meaning found in todays incarnation of the Bible. As I understand it, the Bible we have today is based upon various fragments and small pieces. Men have collated those pieces, for the most part dating well past 1000 years after they were first proported to have been written, and formed a commonly percieved interpretation in our own language. Therefore it is my opinion that the common perception is all that really matters when it comes to how something effects the lives and world views of people, which is what I am talking about here.
This is true, and I suppose I was extending the metaphore a bit to pertain more so to the context of this thread, and what I understand to be the perception of the religious right (Evolutionists vs Creationists etc)
As before, I was talking about Christianity, which was a small, struggling movement at the turn of the century (millenium). Since todays perception, as I understand it, is that the Religious Right clearly feels that anyone who is not exactly as they are is in danger of the fires of Hell, be they athiests, Jews, or even some Catholics.
The movement that holds the balance of power today is that one from the turn of the millenium that was heavily persecuted and fledgling. If it wasnt for Constantine, it might not have survived past the first 300 or so years of its existence. Tremendous wars, violence and power kept it alive and added strength to it for thousands of years until it was “brought back to the fundamentals” by the protestant movement, and eventually “refined” in the revival tents of America into the Pro-Life, Anti Gay Ozzie and Harriet religion we know today that clearly holds the balance of power in the US, and rivals the Uber Powerful Catholic Church which is stumbling thanks to increasing literacy and education and its own corruption exposed.
So, now that the “mainstream evangelicals” (Self referential to fundamentalists or Early Church type followers) have the power…how is it affecting them? Have they become the tyrranical rulers that once persecuted them?
Even accepting that, there is no “common perception” (afaik)that frames up the ‘narrow path’ vs the ‘broad path’ as being between theists and atheists.
That account made a distinction bewtwen those practicing religion correctly (in this case Judaism/Christianity) and those who would not. Certainly among those who would not there must be some atheists—those would reject God completely. But there are no “common perceptions” I’m aware of that make it an “atheist only” affair. You’ve simply taken it out of context.
I’m not sure I understand this.
Wow! There’s some pretty broad generalizations here, huh?
Tyrranical rulers?
Western society is probably more secular than it’s been in hundreds of years.