abysmalpoptart

That's the part I'm not understanding. So how do you recruit new members if you exclusively advertise to people that already agree with you? Your audience is explicitly people who already are part of your group, and that number continues to decline.

There are two groups to try to entice - current members who are losing interest, and non members who are currently non believers. If you only create events that are catering to current and active members, you alienate the others and won't grow

Not sure I'm following your points here. You suggest that the church needs to keep and maintain a community, but doing things that attracts such potential members is inappropriate? I'm not really understanding what the idea to get new members is. Outreach and knowing your audience are important factors in growing a community.

One way to attract members is to showcase that the things that matter or are interesting (within reason) to potential members matters to the current members. People tend to be attracted to people that at least appear to understand them. Highlighting that everyone around you is wrong and doesn't get it kind of pinpoints a major underlying issue with the church today.

Unfortunately, the reality is that every group needs a way to attract members and increase attendance. I'm providing one from 1400s Germany, and some areas in Germany are, to this day, prolifically religious (bavaria, for example). Maybe it turns out it was a good idea to do what you can to keep members?

I'm not from England, but i do pay a lot of attention to music and, broadly speaking, religion, and I'm not entirely sure this is a fair take. Places of worship are not traditionally meant to be exclusively worship zones; they can and should be places to engage the community. An example is that old (medieval) german churches traditionally gave free beer to their patrons as an incentive to attend mass. One major criticism of modern religion is their inability to adapt to modern youth, and this seems like a creative way to engage the community.

Additionally, a lot of "heavy metal" (which is separate from Rock) is basically classical scales but sped up and using distortion. For me personally, there's a subgenre of metal that incorporates operatic vocalists that i find surprisingly fitting for such a sitting.

My sincerest apologies, female actor Margot Robbie.

I'm pretty sure it was Margot Robbie, and that scarjo wasn't in it at all

Good call, i forgot about that one! Also i just looked up stills of walking tall and the rundown, and he had hair in the rundown, and a buzzcut in walking tall, so add another movie that could be just like the ones pictured.

I would guess the rundown and walking tall. Both are actually decent

i think it could be a reference to saying no to plastic clothes hangers, since clothes hangers are an enormous source of plastic waste.

Edit: yes i understand the anti dangerous abortion symbolism, but here are some sources to explain the environmental impacts that are starting to gain some press.

https://torrancerecycles.org/guide/coat-hangers-plastic/#:~:text=Plastic%20hangers%20typically%20wind%20up,and%20BPA%20into%20the%20environment.

https://www.commonobjective.co/article/are-sustainable-hangers-all-they-re-cracked-up-to-be#:~:text=Made%20predominantly%20from%20expanded%20polystyrene,800%2D1%2C000%20years%20to%20breakdown.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plastic-hanger-fun-fact-20-billion-landfills-every-year-gary-barker

I don't think it's fair to assume, at best, an accident is negligence. There are numerous things that can lead to an accident that wouldn't be negligence, such as normal wear and tear causing problems with something such as brakes or steering (perhaps not caught during routine maintenance as they weren't issues at the time), something falling into the road (weather related, wildlife, erosion), a glitch of some kind (two green lights, not negligence necessarily) , or visibility issues (even cautious and solid drivers can be at risk during poor conditions). These are just some examples, but in the cases nobody involved would be at fault.

I believe the comparison to a gun is woefully inaccurate and invalid. Both are machines with the capacity to cause harm, but the similarities end there.

I can totally understand, and that makes a lot of sense. I think the sheer volume of accidents in the post are what's so shocking. I've only been in a vehicle with an obviously reckless driver two times (so far. And to clarify, two people, once each), and from my perspective, some people really shouldn't drive. Heck, one of those two times was supposed to be a casual date (she was picking me up, we were in college), and i asked her to drop me off immediately. Big nope.

That's why i added not high volume times, so what i meant was regarding specifically driving when you aren't stuck in traffic. I'm suggesting that the act of driving itself isn't normally a horrific experience, though yes, sitting in traffic is awful.

Edited for some clarity

I can agree with some of your response to what was said by the other commenter, but my impression is that person was shocked that someone at a young age has been involved in double digit accidents that mostly sound like their fault. Some people really just are incapable of driving, though that shouldn't diminish that small lapses or true accidents do happen.

I would disagree that driving in general is miserable, though I'm sure this can vary by location. While i would prefer better access to efficient public transit (live in the USA), being able to get in a car and go anywhere is pretty freeing, provided it isn't during high volume times, especially on a freeway.