Comments for Difficultere : Making difficult

Comment on Quasi modo geniti infantes by Ivar Bu

Ivar Bu — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:36:34 +0000

Det gleder meg å lese at du siterer Tillich, den glade tvilers favoritt-teolog; ) Håper du tar deg en tur innom min nye blogg, og gjerne slenger inn en kommentar.

http://tankeogtro.wordpress.com/

Comment on Learning from Secular Nations | Christianity Today by difficultere

difficultere — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:14:49 +0000

It would be somewhat nicer if you could elaborate on your comments.
E.g. saying that “In some of the Scandinavian countries you are automatically a member of the church once you are born, they do not choose to be a member of it”, without substantiating it, does not throw any light on why so many people in the Scandinavian countries are members of the national church.
It is a widespread myth, that in my home country you are automatically a member of the Church of Norway when you are born. You become a member if you are baptised/christened. Although, the Act regarding the Church of Norway, states that “Children are seen as belonging to the Church of Norway from birth, as long as one of the parents are member of the Church” (§ 3, section 2). This means that the Church may contact the parent(s) to ask if they wish their child to become a member through baptism.
In the Danish National Church and Church of Sweden you also become a member of the church through baptism. I don’t know how it works in Finland or Iceland, but I would guess it is about the same.
Anyway, my point is that a great majority of the population in these countries choose to carry their child to the baptismal font (Norway: 77,3 % in 2004, i.e. ab. 45.000 children) – and most of them stay faithful members for the rest of their lives (but who knows for future generations). The question is why, and I guess the motivations may vary (they do in my family), although statistics don’t give us the answer to that riddle, it shows there is a relation between the people and the church in Scandinavia.
I do believe that people with no faith can have rich lives, although I guess the meaning and purpose of life means different things for one with no faith and one who has faith.
And to your last brief comment, I see that it is link to a story on the catholic church. I was rather thinking of the “Bekenntniskirche” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekennende_Kirche). Among them were Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a martyr for freedom, justice and faith.

Comment on Learning from Secular Nations | Christianity Today by Sisyphus Fragment

Sisyphus Fragment — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:39:13 +0000

I have a few things I would like to add and one thing to correct.

In some of the Scandinavian countries you are automatically a member of the church once you are born, they do not choose to be a member of it.

You mention that “People with a mature and realistic faith live enriched lives” and I just wanted to say that the faithless can also have enriched lives.

The Church helped the Nazis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7337748.stm

Comment on Incarnation and Desire by irishanglican

irishanglican — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:04:41 +0000

Kierkegaard is always a worthy challenge and read.

“People hardly ever make use of the freedom they have, that is, freedom of thought, and instead demand freedom of speech as a compensation.”

Fr. Robert

Comment on No More Anno Domini? by difficultere

difficultere — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:15:39 +0000

That is exactly my point. As to now no one has really reflected upon this, although an astronomer blogging about this has somewhat humorously said that if he could choose, he would choose the French Republican Calendar (where the dividing line would be 1792 A.D.).

Comment on No More Anno Domini? by Clark Bunch

Clark Bunch — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:33:05 +0000

While using BCE/CE may eliminate Christ from the titles, the irony is that the birth of Christ is still the dividing line between the two. Is no one else slapping their foreheads over this?