Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Religious Nones: The bigger picture shows increasing polarization

Categories
Culture
Intelligent Design
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On recent Sundays, we’ve been pointing to discussions of the rise of the Religious Nones (people who say they have no religion) – and what that means and doesn’t mean. (Here and here, for example).

It doesn’t mean that former theists have become atheists or even that they are likely to. The driving factor is the collapse of mainline Protestantism, leaving people who are vaguely theist without a religious identity. Many questions lie beyond that change but first, a note about identity…

The Catholic Church is in big trouble too. But the nature of the problem is a bit different. “Catholic” is a multigenerational identity. People can think of themselves as Catholic even if no one since their grandparents’ day has ever been to mass. Put another way: They don’t think they’re atheists (that’s scary). They just continue to say they are Catholic—even if they can’t recite the Lord’s Prayer. No one challenges them on the point. Why bother? One suspects it’s roughly similar with Islam in the Middle East.

By contrast, let’s say that no one in your family has darkened the door of a mainline liberal church since your grandmother did, occasonally, in the 1960s. You probably won’t think of yourself as a member. Truth be told, such a church never had much impact on the culture around it. In recent decades, it probably became largely indistinguishable from the surrounding culture from which it got all its ideas. Its disappearance would have little cultural impact.

The rise of the Nones does mean something important, however: Those who care about the Big Questions are more visibly polarized:

Consider, for example, the percentage of Americans who report that their religious affiliation is “Strong.” This percentage has fluctuated a bit over the decades, but the most recent survey puts it at 34 percent, a number that has remained basically unchanged since 1975, when 35 percent of Americans reported a strong religious affiliation. Apparently, the rise of the Nones is not attributable to a decline in religious enthusiasm among the most strongly committed.

By contrast, the decline in the percentage of Americans who say their religious affiliation is only “Somewhat strong” appears steadier, particularly in recent years. In 2006, about 12 percent of Americans told the GSS surveyors that their affiliation was “Somewhat Strong.” In the most recent survey, that percentage has fallen to only 4 percent. That is a significant drop… Confirmation bias is always a problem when one looks at data like this. Still, the 2018 report suggests that Americans are becoming deeply divided in our attitudes toward religion, a subject about which I’ve written elsewhere. Mark Movsesian, “The Devout and the Nones” at First Things

Movsesian goes on to explain that the divide leaves a deeper mark now on American politics, with Religious Nones being the largest group in the Democratic Party (30%) and 70% of declared Republicans believing in the “God of the Bible.” The “religious left,” incidentally, now seems to be largely an artifact of thinkmags, although it was an important force decades ago.

Visible polarization enables issues to become more politicized than they otherwise could be.

Whatever happens with science issues as a result won’t be dull.

See also: Researchers: Rise In “Religious Nones” Masks Growth In Evangelicalism

and

For The First Time, “No Religion” Is The Most Popular Choice For Americans

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
KF, Even gay people do not spend all their time rutting like goats. I suggest the thought of people with same-sex life partners should not immediately conjure up the unpleasant images you described in your previous post.daveS
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Hazel, pardon but we both know that STD's are spread through promiscuity, so that is a red herring. Secondly, given precedent in law, lesbian behaviours cannot be severed from all too typical male homosexual behaviours, or for that matter from many other aspects of the lengthening alphabet soup abbreviation that is commonly used. As to the matter of twisting out of the manifest order of nature coded into the genetic basis of the two complementary sexes and linked requisites of sound child nurture, one may choose to deny but cannot change the manifest realities. You have managed to turn around the issue rhetorically by dismissing massive empirical evidence of the order of nature for the two sexes and asserting that to point such out is mere opinion, meanwhile implying that it is all mere opinion, i.e. there is no naturally evident basis for the conjugal, historic understanding of marriage. In reply I simply note the bare fact that marriage is immemorial but the novelty we are seeing imposed by dubious means under colour of law was barely whispered in odd academic corners but a few decades ago. It has gained currency precisely because the moral fabric and intellectual underpinnings of our civilisation are being aggressively eroded by radical but powerful, well-funded agendas. Agendas that as I noted, just applauded the usurpation of a constitution by a judge trying to impose his agenda from the bench, and yes I am implying that the FCO is implicated given a message they put out on the matter. A warning bell if ever there was one -- this sort of misgovernment is fully of the magnitude of what triggered the American Revolution. Do we understand the matches we are playing with? KFkairosfocus
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
F/N: I think a bit more from Plato is useful on the wider pattern of how democracies are inherently unstable and need to be regulated culturally through a sound moral consensus -- which is exactly what is being undermined in our civilisation:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
Remember, this was penned in response to the collapse of the first significant democratic polity. KFkairosfocus
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
A substantive fact, I think. Lesbian sex carries less risk of disease than heterosexual sex, and many heterosexuals suffer fro STD's. And I don't see any sustantive argument about what is perverse from kf: I just see opinion. He's welcome to his opinion, of course, but he doesn't hold the market on what is reasonable.hazel
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Hazel, there is no rant -- no empty rage or irrational raving [there is due revulsion and sadness at the state and trends of our Civilisation] -- and the pattern of side stepping of substantial matters on the table is duly noted.I draw your specific attention to a Constitutional law, good governance issue that has been put on the table. I do point out that when people conclude that judges will impose their agendas on Constitutions, arrogating the power to amend constitutions from the bench, that is what will stir quite justified outrage. Which is not by any means empty ranting. "A long train of abuses and usurpations" beyond reasonable doubt destabilises the foundations of governmental legitimacy. KFkairosfocus
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
DS, I suggest you may be well advised to reconsider, i/l/o fairly unpleasant but regrettably accurate facts of the matter. That is an actual issue in itself, it is one that is plainly also connected to health issues and it is one reason why it is clear that something is seriously questionable with what is being advocated: abuse of organs in patently unhealthy and even dangerous ways that cut across manifest purposes -- hence, twisting out of the natural order in perverse ways is not something that we can sweep away as though it is a mere dismissible, unsophisticated, ill-mannered opinion. I do not doubt that many are now desensitised to the issue and would like to act as though it is immaterial, but it is in fact and for cause strongly connected to a significant part of the objections that are made. KFkairosfocus
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
kf, if you would like people to respond to substantive issues rather than the ranting nature of your posts, don't rant. That's simple.hazel
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Hazel, first, you may want to address the substantial matters on the table rather than speaking dismissively of rants. Currently, for example, there is an attempted precedent on the table in this region where a judge has implicitly claimed power to single-handedly rewrite a Constitution, leading to an appeal by the Government. That is -- by any reasonable reckoning -- a serious tyrannical, anti-democratic move being motivated by the sorts of assertions I have addressed above in brief. A Democratic Constitution (especially on Bill of Rights clauses) manifestly should only be amended through democratic processes. And if questionable assertions are eroding Constitutional law like this, sensible people had better sit up and take notice. KFkairosfocus
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
hazel,
Has it dawned on you, kf, that lots of reasonable people don’t consider homosexuality a perversion, and are interested in the subject because they believe homosexuals deserve to be treated equally in all respect to others, so that people like you who consider homosexuality a perversion are a significant part of the problem.
I agree. It is a significant problem (IMHO) that so many people, when encountering a gay person or even the word "homosexuality" immediately think of "actual or metaphorical sewage".daveS
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Now hopefully without hitting a beehive I will attempt to explain this. It is not the homosexual person that should be demonized at all there still a person. And he without sin may cast the first stone as Jesus said. What is considered a sin by the Catholic Church is the actual action of having sex with the same sex the attraction itself is not considered a sin. And again I would like to emphasize and he without sin may cast the first stone. We all screw up This is were a lot of debate stems from The distinction of the two. The person having same-sex attraction should not be demonized. The same sex attraction can be stemmed from many different factors both environmental and some genetic even though there is no specific gay gene especially as of recently shown, I do believe there are epigenetic factor and other environmental things that contribute to it. It is often that people that experience some form of molestation have a tendency toward same-sex attraction. Which in the Old Testament does decree stoning of both the perpetrator and the victim I believe for the reason of the behavior spreading. This is a spot I don’t agree with but I do understand why it was written like that at the time, But again the son of God a.k.a. God stated he without sin may cast the first stone. But the attraction in itself is not the sin. It’s specifically the action. The reason for this is because of natural law and a union between a male and female is required to have a chance at producing new life(another human) There is no chance of that in the union between a male and a male or a female and a female, not through natural means. I strongly believe finding a middle ground where everybody can meet can rectify a lot of these issues Being homosexual is not a sin and having a same-sex attraction that person should not be treated as a leper, Much like anything it’s the action that is considered the sin. Now I understand that having sex is an integral part of a relationship and having that intimacy Saying that it is a sin to do so is also similar to saying that they don’t have a right to love. I’m not saying that but I am saying that since this is a problem we should probably try to figure a way to clarify that and even help people find a reasonable solution for this as well I personally do not have a solution, But I have heard of programs that work and help people find an answer And I have seen people shift their attraction in one direction or another so it’s not entirely hopeless or locked in I would just suggest that we offer up our understanding patience and consideration towards people of same-sex attraction and treat them no differently than everybody elseAaronS1978
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
hazel:
Has it dawned on you, kf, that lots of reasonable people don’t consider homosexuality a perversion,...
No. I doubt such people exist.ET
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
AaronS1978@23, excellent post. I agree that there is nothing to be gained by browbeating or making baseless accusations against someone. There is even less to be gained by raising the discussion to an emotional level, which is what Jerry Coyne does. I may agree with the basics of what he says on many occasions but I completely disagree with the way he says it. The same applies to Dawkins and Hitchens. I have tried very hard to be reasonable but I admit that I have, on occasion, slipped. I learned a long time ago that the best way for me to avoid falling into that trap is to simply not read or respond to some commenters. Unfortunately, this sometimes gets these people even more irate. But short of lying and saying that I agree with what they are saying, I don't know what more can be done.
But I totally get where you’re coming from because that actually happened to me and it was with the person whom which I regarded as a friend and didn’t find out until way later how much he hated Christians, but I don’t believe is the case for BB
I can assure you that I don't hate Christians, or any religion for that mater. My wife is Christian and my daughter is converting to Judaism. I strongly disagree with some religious teachings, homosexuality, birth control and premarital sex as examples, but that is fine. I fully support anyone who wants to abstain from their same sex attraction, not use birth control and not have sex until they are married. But I don't support people trying to use force of law, or social sanctions, to prevent others from following through with same sex attraction, using birth control or having sex before marriage.Brother Brian
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Brother Brian:
If you are going to believe every lie that comes out of ET’s mouth then I don’t think we have anything to discuss.
Look, punk, if anyone here is a liar it is you. And you don't have anything to dioscussET
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Thanks Hazel. It just seemed logical that as the general population gets to know more and more LBQT people, and realize that they don't have horns, that people will start questioning the teaching of churches that still "demonize" same sex attraction. Again, I find this to be sad as most churches do some very good and necessary work. There are other church teachings, such as not eating meat on Friday, that don't make any logical sense but they are essentially harmless and just a way to demonstrate their faith. But the views on LGQT people hits too close to home for many people, and has a long history of resulting in persecution and prosecution of people simply for being attracted to the wrong person.Brother Brian
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Hey guys, I don’t want to sound like an idiot I guess is the only way I can put it or I’m sitting on a high horse because I’m not But I do try very hard not to browbeat or aggressively attack anyone on this site for any reason as I would prefer to explain my point of you and share that in the hopes that maybe it might convince or help someone see Things differently. Now I do go on to some of my rants such as anything blabbed out by Jerry Coyne, But I return exactly what he delivers so I think that’s fair But it when it comes to people on the site which I love the site to be honest with you, I do try very hard to keep it cordial and the main reason why is because I’ve been on other sites where you state your opinion and certain individuals will ravenously attack you even when they’re wrong and they will just continue to attack you until you stop. My experience has been people like Jerry Coyne doing exactly that to me. It always boils down to them just trying to make you seem like you’re stupid when you’re not This is the main reason why I don’t immediately start swinging at people like seversky and bb. I certainly don’t like it and find it not helpful in trying to get your point across to someone the doesn’t believe. I have noticed a couple of times that I’ve chimed in on and even gotten the backing of the site moderator when people it came to that for example What happened to you seversky When he said he didn’t support any show that claimed to be a documentary but felt the need to lie to get it’s point across. It was with Tyson Neil’s use of over exaggerating the truth and lying in some cases, seversky said he disagreed with it but a couple of us misread it and jumped on his case. I pointed out that he was actually disagreeing with the commentator and was agreeing with this sites post. I believe Barry said seversky was owned an apology. We all make mistakes we just got to be mindful of them I just try to keep things fair. On post a while back when I engage BB about a comment he made when it came to genetic engineering and the comment made by BB about F and G, I engaged in what I felt was appropriate but I didn’t go into mocking or attacking them. Since then BB and I have had I couple of back-and-forth that have been not bad conversation. I really do try to be careful though because a lot of what we discussed is a very sensitive topic and often we do have people jump down our throat’s for what we believe and so I really try hard not to do the same to those that don’t believe in what we do And that’s why I try to keep it chill with even the people that disagree with me Except for Jerry Coyne He doesn’t deserve any respect alongside his anti- theist cronies On his website why evolution is true.............. I only said it like that because he said the exact same thing about David that still gets under my skin he such a jerk By the way KF home which I have the utmost respect in. I have a story for you one of the first people I beat in a debate was a guy named Malachi Howard and his real name was Ben. When you mention the above about BBs name it reminded me of this. He looked like an evil Doogie Houser even had an evil mustache So he was sat next to me in my debate class we ended up getting along really well I even drew in the picture of the character venom for the front cover of this book. I had just finished my debate with another individual about video games and how damaging that they could Be to you. I won the debate which was hilarious because I am a huge video game nut, And so was my opponent the differences I understand what problems video games can bring. Anyways it was Malachi Howard turn. I went in entire semester not knowing anything about him when it came to this topic but his topic of debate was comparing God to Santa Claus. He started up by mocking everybody they didn’t believe in evolution. And he quoted everything from the God delusion. Again this guy and I got along really well up until he did that. I saw what he was doing and I started to engage him and he was not prepared for what I was bringing to the table he even missed quoted several lines of his own evidence which I fact checked him right then and there. I wasn’t even supposed to debate him he didn’t have somebody that was challenging him apparently so I ended up being his challenger. He failed the debate and he actually received a D on his project. You never spoke to me again after that day even though I asked him at the end of it why his name was Malachi and it was actually specifically to mock the Bible. It just reminded me of that one that was mentioned above. So I totally understand why you thought BBs name was like that but after a little bit I didn’t think BB was really doing that. But I totally get where you’re coming from because that actually happened to me and it was with the person whom which I regarded as a friend and didn’t find out until way later how much he hated Christians, but I don’t believe is the case for BBAaronS1978
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Pardon, but why is it that you are so obviously obsessed with perversities and repeatedly bring them up seemingly under any remote excuse? (Has it dawned on you that reasonable people are generally repelled by actual or metaphorical sewage and only deal with such by necessity, then they go wash hands and try to forget? )
Hmmm. Has it dawned on you, kf, that lots of reasonable people don't consider homosexuality a perversion, and are interested in the subject because they believe homosexuals deserve to be treated equally in all respect to others, so that people like you who consider homosexuality a perversion are a significant part of the problem. Saying that "reasonable people are generally repelled" arrogantly ascribes to yourself an inaccurate and unjustified right to declare what is reasonable.hazel
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Just a word to BB. I think you are right that LBQT issues are one of they key issues splitting people from some churches, and churches from each other. I also offer my sympathy about your having triggered some of kf's rants.hazel
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Nominal Christianity has been on the decline in America since the 1960s, and I say, good riddance to it. As for the homosexual issue, those churches that have tried to shoehorn it into their theology, or otherwise simply dismissed biblical doctrine about marriage and sexuality, have been on that road to oblivion. Indeed, research shows that those who profess to be gay are much more likely to seek out a conservative, Evangelical congregation than a liberal mainline church. That may seem remarkable at face value, but it reveals that those who truly seek the Face of Jesus will gravitate toward truth. Those who are exclusively concerned about their own needs and desires, Scripture, doctrine, and historical grounding be damned, will never arrive on that heavenly shore. The bottom line is if the "Church Universal" concerns itself with numbers and popularity, then it will never be the instrument that God has ordained it to be. Instead, let God worry about the numbers, and don't forget that narrow is the way.OldArmy94
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
KF
Going forward, that is how I will for cause regard “your” persona, including the fairly obvious subtext in a loaded name.
The origin of my internet name comes from the fact that my name is Brian and I have two older sisters who always refer to me by that moniker. In fact, most of my good friend call be Brother Brian. That you derive some nefarious motive behind my moniker is beyond my control.
That “you” have tried to disqualify and dismiss two participants who responded on the merits without cogent reply, speaks directly to the problem of such ideological, agit prop tactics.
I have had very good back-and-forth with EDTA and Aaron1978. I respond to any commenter who maintains that level of courtesy, even if we disagree. To those who don't, I simply do not typically respond. I find that a wise approach.Brother Brian
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
BB, sorry, but on the above behaviour in this thread "you" now have independently satisfied me that "you" are one face of a circle of irresponsible Internet straw figures pushing a ruinous agenda (commonly termed "trolls" or "Internet atheists " etc), whether put up by one individual or by a circle of ideologically driven hyperskeptics is of little moment. Going forward, that is how I will for cause regard "your" persona, including the fairly obvious subtext in a loaded name. I answer "you" and that circle above, given yet another manifestation of an unhealthy, unwholesome obsession and linked agenda that evidently need to be corrected for record. In that context, it is fair comment for me to note for recor also, that such straw figures exist only to push an agenda, they are not genuine interlocutors and so they are answered for record to correct the agenda, not in any expectation of reasonableness or responsible behaviour. That "you" have tried to disqualify and dismiss two participants who responded on the merits without cogent reply, speaks directly to the problem of such ideological, agit prop tactics. When you -- I here stop the quote marks, having made the point -- respond responsibly, we will take you more seriously, until then the absence of cogent response given the sort of assertions you already made, speaks for itself. KFkairosfocus
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
KF
BB (or should that be any of a large number of other sock puppet aliases?),
If you are going to believe every lie that comes out of ET's mouth then I don't think we have anything to discuss.Brother Brian
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
EDTA
Isn’t it more the case that we have our prejudices, and then we seek out the groups (now on the internet instead of in our home town) in which we feel most comfortable–which will be the ones that agree with us?
You have a good point here. And I believe you are correct with situations of people joining specific churches, or other organizations for that matter. People will join the churches that best match their own beliefs and prejudices. We don't have to look any further than the Westboro church to know that this is likely true. However, I don't think that this would account for people leaving churches. It would be interesting to see what happened after that hateful minister became the pastor of the westboro church (assuming it existed before him). I assume that there were a large number of congregants who left because of his vile preachings.Brother Brian
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
BB (or should that be any of a large number of other sock puppet aliases?), Pardon, but why is it that you are so obviously obsessed with perversities and repeatedly bring them up seemingly under any remote excuse? (Has it dawned on you that reasonable people are generally repelled by actual or metaphorical sewage and only deal with such by necessity, then they go wash hands and try to forget? ) It seems it is necessary to again put a few corrections on the table:
>>Isn’t it possible that the rise in nones is due to a rise in people making their own determination as to what the scriptures mean rather than relying on others to tell them?>> a: As this seems a root point, it needs to be dealt with first. b: For one, in an era when radical but self-referentially incoherent, self-falsifying subjectivism and relativism compounded by media trumpeted radical, ill-founded skeptical speculation have spread far and wide, a truer summary would be that many people are turning to voices that tickle their itching ears with what they want to hear, rather than to soundness. b: A strong indicator that such is the case can be seen from the tendencies to wrench scripture out of sound and responsible consultation, interpretation and application, in defiant ignorance, to set up and knock over biblical strawman targets and the linked tendency to avoid fairly addressing on its merits, the core warrant for the Christian faith. >> I think one of the other things driving people away from the church is their stance on homosexuality.>> c: When one is in Isa 5:20 - 21 territory, of course one will despise what does not comfort one in waywardness:
Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
d: Where, Paul is manifestly right in the analysis of what happens when communities turn their backs on the root of reality who is its moral governor:
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
e: Thank God, that is not irreversible, just as with the woman caught in adultery who Jesus saved from those who pounced on her then counselled to leave her life of sin, by the gospel and the Spirit through the scriptures and support of the body, we may find deliverance from ruinous, enslaving unrighteousness:
1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
f: That's not a welcome message today, but it is a sound one backed up by millions of cases in point. >> As the negative social and career implications of being a known homosexual have significantly declined>> g: The life-, health- and soul- wrecking implications have not declined. >> more and more people have discovered that they have friends and family members who are homosexual. And they see that these people are the same as they are, and not the deluded sick sinners that many churches tell them that they are.>> h: The incidence of such behaviour varies with cultural settings. Vanishingly small in some cases, 1 - 3% in our time and culture, 100% by way of compulsory social role in certain cultures, so familiarity with cases does not change the facts of damaging, ruinous perversity with destructive personal and cultural consequences. (Kindly see the sobering discussion here and ponder why we so often hear only what is now an obviously heavily funded, power broker-backed ideological agenda and its talking points. A glance over at how the ongoing slaughter of our living posterity in the womb at a million more per week, cumulatively 800+ millions in 40 years is enough to show that what the powers push and what is right or truth have little to do with one another.) i: Today, we see how we are embarking on an increasingly grotesque experiment with over a hundred so-called genders, undermining of the stable heterosexual marital bond, linked undermining of family as stabilising social foundation, and more. j: As I am not in jurisdictions where I would be pounced on, deplatformed and censored for saying such unwelcome things, I can add, we also see a rising lawless bully tactic trend associated with homosexualist radicalism, including in dangerous judicial over-reach by way of trying to rewrite not just constitutions but the laws of our nature written into our XX and XY genes and linked requisites of child nurture. k: As Rom 1 directly implies, societies in rebellion against the plain evidence of a conscience guided inner life and of an obvious creation order without, thus in moral spin-out, are generally full of deluded sinners, convinced they are right but manifestly wrong. l: Where, the sinners part is universal: "ALL have sinned . . ." m: In some societies, there is sufficient truth that is preserved and respected that people in rebellion against God and the right, or who find themselves trapped in enslaving sins at least recognise their plight. That is a better state than one where we pretend wrong is right and then attack the right and the truth for failure to conform to crookedness. n: That latter condition is why our civilisation is on a voyage of stubborn, ruinous folly headed for shipwreck. As Plato warned against, much less many others. >>But telling homosexuals that they are sinners,>> o: To tell people that we are ALL trapped in sin and need rescue, cleansing and transformation is to tell the truth of hope. To cling to darkness and its progressive ruin, is folly. p: To point out, by way of a plumb line, that we are setting up a crooked yardstick as false standard of straightness, accuracy and uprightness, is a needed correction. >>and that they are not allowed to marry the person they love>> q: We are repeatedly warned that falling in love, or infatuation or simply lust out of moral control of what is right is a snare that pulls us into ruinous sin. So, "but I'm in love" is no excuse from moral responsibility. Hollywood's myths are no help. r: The critical question is, what does the law of our manifest nature, rooted in creation order, have to say about what marriage is. That is obvious, given our complementary sexes and the requisites of sound family life. Marriage is not a legal fiction, a label for a contract that sets up an artificial person that can be reconstituted under colour of law at will. s: That pretence that we are dealing with a mere social convention is the central fallacy that has been foisted on us, setting up a crooked yardstick under false colour of law. >>because of something written in the bible, with no valid argument other than words written a few thousand years ago,>> t: The central hatred of God, our creator, having a voice in how morally governed creation is to operate, emerges. And in appealing to anti-Christian bigotry, such rhetoric dodges the manifest evidence from our nature as male and female as key parts of that creation order. u: So, to correct the crooked yardstick, let us put on the table the hated, corrective words from the mouth of the acknowledged all-time greatest of moral teachers, Jesus of Nazareth (as part of a teaching on the prior folly of the serial adultery-driven divorce and remarriage game):
Matt 19:4 He [Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [--> Gen 1 - 2, note the identified, naturally obvious case of two distinct, reproductively complementary sexes, here anchored to creation order for the human race], 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother [--> implying the successive generations of families built on man + woman + faithful commitment --> well-nurtured children] and hold fast to his wife [--> fidelity propagates from one generation to the next, how much more so infidelity], and the two [= husband (male) + wife (female)] shall become one flesh’ [--> through the act of marital, procreative union, naturally leading to children]? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. [--> ponder how the child reflects that union] What therefore God has joined together [--> Adam and Eve and their successors in one flesh union], let not man separate [--> including, how much more, by violating the nature of marital union: Adam + Steve, Eve + Mary, Either + fido, or a robot etc].”
v: This is clearly rooted in naturally evident creation order, and is a law that is antecedent to what kings, parliaments or judges may decree. They did not invent marriage, nor can they re-invent it, they can only set up crooked yardsticks under false colour of law. w: With, ruinous consequences that are already beginning to be manifest in what 5 year olds are being taught under compulsory education law (as in, moral turpitude and millstones . . . ) , with the chaos of over a hundred so called genders (many, frankly, manifestly insane . . . ), with usurpations and impositions on conscience and freedom of expression that point to unravelling the hard-bought lessons and compromises in constitutional law that recognises and protects such freedoms. >> drives them and their family and friends away from the church.>> x: If this is the price such wish to demand in order to be involved then it is too high: apostasy. y: The historic Christian faith is just that, historic, anchored on an authentic gospel witness attested by the 500 core witnesses and so too on longstanding factual, ethical and scriptural foundations that we neither created nor have legitimate authority to materially alter. z: If one wishes to walk away from well founded truth, that is his ill-advised choice [which, please, please, please, for one's own good, reconsider . . .], but that cannot ever change the eternal reality attested to by that truth and that historic witness to and record of the truth sealed with the blood of the apostles and martyrs. Including, where that reality, that truth, that witness, that record happens to address man as male and female, the marital union and the family as the naturally evident creation order foundation for a sound civilisation.
kairosfocus
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
F/N: Also, let us not forget the post 9/11 false, academically grossly irresponsible false immoral equivalency projected from Islamist radicalism to the historic Christian faith and to contemporary Christians. Because of the hole where sound history should reside in our common knowledge (and let's not start on the holes for logic and worldviews analysis) such scapegoating, stereotyping, slander and outright deceit have built up a dangerously false view that is now routinely reinforced as a case of what people often think they know but don't. Blend in the corrosive impact of the institutional and personal blood guilt over the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb -- 800+ millions in 40+ years, mounting at about a further million per WEEK -- and we see a toxic brew that is inviting an intoxicated generation down a slippery slope -- and yes, slipperiness is obviously a ratchet -- heading over a cliff. The ghost of Plato is shaking its head in disbelief, as adequate warning was put on the table 2350 years ago. KF PS: Lest we forget, Plato's warning:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
The increasing polarization in society is due to the asinine insistence on methodological naturalism in science. That and scientists pushing BS scienceET
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
Brother Brian:
But telling homosexuals that they are sinners, and that they are not allowed to marry the person they love because of something written in the bible, with no valid argument other than words written a few thousand years ago, drives them and their family and friends away from the church.
Total nonsense. They cannot procreate, so given that they cannot marry. That is the valid argument.ET
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
Sev, never underestimate the consequences of sending a Lenin into a society in ferment in a sealed train, or of sponsoring a disaffected soldier recovering from war wounds to spy on a small political circle he might want to join.. That is only the two most glaring cases. We have been taught to despise the heritage of Christendom, by those who abused positions of trust to teach selective hyperskepticism, nihilism and radical agendas under false colours of Classics, History, Theology, Literature, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Law, Politics/Government and these days Science. Their students carried same into the media and halls of power, compounded by spiral of silencing tactics.Cultural Marxists tracing to the Frankfurt School and the like and derivatives in so-called Critical Studies schools, I am looking straight at you, you bear serious responsibilities for the consequences that are beginning to play out despite abundant historical exemplars that should have warned us. One of those lessons is that while age old evils and corrupt tendencies are going to be present in communities and institutions, so are means of responsible reform, where also the warped, ruthless and ambitious radicals pining for revolutionary tyrannical unaccountable power are utterly unlikely to lead successful reforms but rather reigns of terror. Our civilisation in recent generations has failed to learn the hard-bought, bitterly costly sound lessons of history (including the literally living memory history of Fascism and Communism) and now the bills are beginning to come due. KFkairosfocus
May 6, 2019
May
05
May
6
06
2019
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT
BB @ 1, >We have to justify and be accountable for our own prejudices rather than use church authority to justify them. Isn't it more the case that we have our prejudices, and then we seek out the groups (now on the internet instead of in our home town) in which we feel most comfortable--which will be the ones that agree with us? That's where the internet hurts us because every kind of nuttiness is out there--even kinds that were not available to most people 30 years ago even. So I'm not sure that people are making up their our own minds any more than they used to, nor that bigotry is being reduced in reality. Sev @ 7, >The increasing polarization in society is what alarms me because it seems to be spreading across >all human societies... . >...some sort of nascent global social upheaval that is a consequence of the sheer size and >complexity of human society, the appalling difficulties of governance and administration on >this scale, the widening gap between government and the governed, the inevitable corruption >that attends these situations and mass communications and social media that make money out of >pandering to the prejudices and fears of their vast audiences. I'm thinking this is a good part of what is happening.EDTA
May 5, 2019
May
05
May
5
05
2019
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Funny, BB wants to lecture the church on what positions it should take on objective morality when his materialistic worldview is completely amoral and denies the existence of objective morality altogether. In fact, when the 'survival of the fittest' morality of Darwinism is coupled with BB's atheistic materialism, not only is the resulting morality inherent in BB's worldview amoral but it becomes downright anti-morality. BB may falsely believe that he has the moral wherewithal to lecture the church on objective morality, but far be it from me personally to pretend to lecture anyone else on how they should conduct their lives. All I can share is my own testimony of how my own sins kept me homeless and in dire poverty for over twelves years. And from that homeless nightmare I can testify, what the sinner who lost all control of his destructive sin readily understands, but the sinner, who does not think he is really a sinner (if he even admits that there is even such a thing as sin), but who is under the delusion that he is somehow controlling his sin, does not readily understand, is that Jesus Christ had the full power and authority of heaven to relieve Himself of the horrid torment of the cross but instead chose, because of His great love for us, to endure it, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome temptation, sin, hell and death, and all their horrors, on our behalf, (since we were and are completely incapable of doing so), so that we may be set free from our sin, even from death, and reunited with Him. Love is the only proper response on our part.
John 8 34 Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Temple Veil – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDNHoijNO2I Broken Vessels (Amazing Grace) [Official Lyric Video] - Hillsong Worship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiyYoe678yI
bornagain77
May 5, 2019
May
05
May
5
05
2019
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
AaronS1977
Just got home and read this and I do agree with BB and the homosexuality thing.
Thank you. As I am sure you can predict, I don’t always get the best reception here when I mention homosexuality. I don’t think this is the only issue driving people away from the churches. Proscriptions against bIrth control and premarital sex contribute to this as well. But the bizarre attitude that is being taken against homosexuality, has driven more people away from organized religion than anything I can think of in recent history. Birth control and premarital sex are issues, but the majority of Catholics simply ignore thiese edicts and don’t tell anyone. But telling homosexuals that they are sinners, and that they are not allowed to marry the person they love because of something written in the bible, with no valid argument other than words written a few thousand years ago, drives them and their family and friends away from the church. This is sad because most churches do far more good than harm. But people remember the harm more than they remember the good.Brother Brian
May 5, 2019
May
05
May
5
05
2019
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply