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
We understand that is what you think, kf, and you are entitled to your opinion. But the issue is that many people disagree with you, and disagreements about this and other related topics are part of the reason people are becoming uninterested with church membership.hazel
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST
H, the record above stands. So does the implication of the consistent diversion from core foundational matters of truth and warrant. If the core gospel is well warranted (and serious examination has been invited for 2000 years) then turning from it is turning from the truth and right we do or should -- per warrant -- know. Such rejection in the face of warrant has serious implications. Therefore, the pivot is warrant. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PST
DS, kindly drop the projection of hate and phobia, that is an unjustified personal attack -- and one in a context where many substantial issues on the table are not being addressed cogently. Which in the end speaks. I have given an analysis of one stream of a broad movement of skepticism and cultural marxist influence and its effects on a civilisation foundational movement thus also the civilisation. That is about ideas and movements and strategies not individuals. The primary question of truth -- accurate description of reality -- on the table is that of the fundamental human moral dilemma and the warrant for the gospel answer to it, which extends into moral matters, including the strong endorsement of NT foundational documents that we are under moral government of law written into our hearts and are accountable over the implications of moral government expressed as the law of our nature. I suggest, that that is what needs to be cogently addressed: warrant. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PST
Kf writes, “It is clear that from its first few comments — as started by BB from 1 and from 3 and 8 following — the thread was pulled into topics that for cause most normal people find repulsive.” Man, you really don’t get it. BB’s comments were exactly on topic: he was offering some thoughts about why church membership has declined:
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? I would think that people using the brain given to them by God (according to most here) to interpret his “words” would be what God would want. Personally I think a decline in the “authority” of religion is a good thing for society. We have to justify and be accountable for our own prejudices rather than use church authority to justify them.
One of the things he mentioned that people have decided to think for themselves about is homosexuality, because they disagree with the stance of the church. Your statement that this is a topic that “most normal people find repulsive” is EXACTLY the problem BB is talking about: a puritanical viewpoint that many normal people find outdated, repressive, and antithetical to our values about the pursuit of happiness. YOU, kf, are representative of one of the reasons people are leaving the church, and BB’s opening comments have helped illuminate that topic.hazel
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PST
KF, PS to my #151: Have you spoken about these issues with your pastor? I ask this in all seriousness---I have had discussions with "my" (well, my wife's) pastor that have been very helpful.daveS
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PST
"modest goals" and yet,,,
Christian women and radical feminists unite to oppose the Equality Act – May 06, 2019 “What threat could possibly unite radical feminists and Christian women conservatives? Clearly this is a historic and momentous occasion when women on the left and right have put aside differences to come together on behalf of all women. The Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) and Concerned Women for America (CWA) recently joined hands to oppose the misnamed and insidious Equality Act. It’s true that we disagree about many (maybe even most) issues. But there is no doubt that American women are in jeopardy of losing hard-fought-for rights. The Equality Act just passed the House Judiciary Committee last week, and it threatens to erase protections for women — protections that benefit women and society as a whole. Legislative and policy “reforms” proposed in this dangerous bill will lead to blatant violations of our safety, privacy, and dignity. Under this bill, men and boys will take away women’s small business grants and hard-won spots on sports teams; they will be allowed to live in women’s domestic violence shelters and use our locker rooms…. For a male who identifies as female, he doesn’t even have to change his name, the way he dresses, or see a doctor or counselor. If the Equality Act passes, he’ll also be able to sue you for violating his civil rights if you persist in seeing him for the man that he is.” https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/06/feminists_conservatives_join_forces_to_oppose_equality_act_140261.html
Let that sink in,,, "if you persist in seeing him for the man that he is.” So much for modest goals. Kf is right, homosexual advocates sell their agenda as nothing for us to get overly concerned about, i.e. "just two people loving each other" they say, and you are a hateful homophobic bigot for suggesting otherwise, they say,,, but in reality, the homosexual agenda seeks to radically alter society itself and if you stand in their way they will marshal all their forces to destroy you and your business. There is hate in the debate, but the vast majority of the time it is those pushing the homosexual agenda who are being extremely hateful towards Christians, or anyone else, who dare stand in the way of their overall agenda to transform society. A little peek beneath the hood
Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court By Lauretta Brown | January 23, 2015 Excerpt: “I wasn’t surrounded by average heterosexual couples,” she says in her court brief. “Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.” “There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and innocence were violated.” “As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion,” Stefanowicz explained. “Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.” “I grew up with a parent and her partner[s] in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.” Klein said she was taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent,” and that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic” because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’” “At the same time I was given the message that if I did not agree (which I did not), I was stupid and damned to a life of punishing hostility from my mother and her partner,” she recounts. “They did this with the encouragement of all their gay friends in the community and they were like a cheering squad. I was only allowed out of my room to go to school. This could go on for weeks.” “I was supposed to hate everyone based on what they thought of my mother and her partner,” said Klein. “People’s accomplishments did not matter, their personal struggles did not matter, and their own histories were of no consequence. The only thing that mattered was what they thought of gays.” Robert Oscar Lopez who was also raised by a lesbian mother and her partner, had a different experience which he described as the “best possible conditions for a child raised by a same-sex couple.” “Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting ‘experts’ in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life,” Lopez wrote, but then went on to argue against same-sex marriage saying that, “behind these facades of a happy ‘outcome’ lay many problems.” He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager.,,, https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court
bornagain77
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PST
KF,
The real verdict against the homosexualist agenda and its rhetorical narratives is that it is not merely anti-Christian but anti-civilisational, disruptive to core issues of personhood, sound management of sexuality, to the foundational institution of marriage (which it seeks to redefine out of existence under false colour of law) and so also disruptive to sound family life, proper upbringing and formation of personal identity.
Yikes. What a hateful and uninformed message you are spreading. Anyway, the people I know who are homosexual have more modest goals. They simply want to enjoy the same freedoms that I have. Such as sharing their life with the person they love. They also would like to find fulfilling work and feel that they are contributing to society. Except for some physical differences (as a couple), they are just like you and me.daveS
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PST
Kf, 148, nice summation. per 149, You may appreciate this from David Wood. It was given in response to an atheist he was debating at the time:
Dr. David Wood Proves the Resurrection of Christ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZVgM3gxxh8
bornagain77
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PST
SZ, I suggest a glance here, yes, a tabulation of the Nicene Creed, set in linked scriptural context, point by point. I further suggest a careful reading here, an undeniably foundational historic creedal summary of the heart of the gospel message dated as text to 55 AD and as underlying oral tradition reporting the core testimony of the 500 central witnesses, to 35 - 38 AD. That is what has to be answered to by those inclined to invite us to de-christianisation, and I again therefore point here on. particularly noting the tabulation on core, minimal historic facts. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PST
BB (& EG et al): It is clear that from its first few comments -- as started by BB from 1 and from 3 and 8 following -- the thread was pulled into topics that for cause most normal people find repulsive. It exists in the further context of trollish rhetorical claims to an unanswerable pro-homosexualism (etc) case, as well as of dismissiveness to the longstanding concepts that we have a naturally evident morally governed nature and that this extends to implications of the complementarity of the two sexes forming the unit of reproduction, tied to stability needs for child rearing. (See Girgis et al on conjugal marriage here on; that which is built in to our morally governed nature is a law that Governments cannot create nor repeal, they may only duly recognise or ill-advisedly distort under false colour of law; at peril of undermining core human rights -- which is precisely what is at stake on these matters.) Further to such, the arguments made above turned on an implicit expectation that the historic Christian faith (which is foundational to our civilisation) rejects the creation order framework for marriage and sexual ethics, set in the context that refusal to abandon such creation order naturally evident ethics is a driving dynamic for waning in the culture. That is, effectively, in a culture bent on de-christianisation, the church itself should be de-christianised in order to remain "relevant." The proper name for such an invitation to heresy is, apostasy. (The due answer to such starts with the key, core warrant for the gospel, which grounds its credibility as true and so, decisively relevant to every living soul. That is, as accurately reporting central facts about our nature as a morally governed creation with a sin problem requiring redemption by Messiah and as calling us to repentance and sound discipleship. Those who propose de-christianisation should first provide an actually sound, cogent rebuttal to the central gospel message. Though many assert or imply that such exists, such an argument does not appear above, nor can it be found in the many attempted skeptical alternatives to the historic core gospel facts and message. In reply, Christians will insist that for excellent cause, we confidently stand today on the same grounds we have stood on since 30 AD. The just linked will provide a 101, including several useful video presentations. [Those who have been led to denigrate and despise the heritage of Christendom -- a standard cultural marxist strategy (often presented as critical studies of X, Y, Z etc) -- are invited to ponder a balancing view here on, and those needing to engage a worldviews level analysis may find here on helpful.]) Others of course pointed out that it is those churches that seek to most vigorously stand by the historic core of the Christian faith that are growing. That aside, it has also been evident that, contrary to the confidently asserted claims on the merits, objectors to historic, natural law oriented views of sexuality, marriage, family life, community life and personal identity have not made a cogent case. That can be seen, for instance in the consistent failure above to cogently answer the issues pointed out in 15 above and brought forward at 132. The real verdict against the homosexualist agenda and its rhetorical narratives is that it is not merely anti-Christian but anti-civilisational, disruptive to core issues of personhood, sound management of sexuality, to the foundational institution of marriage (which it seeks to redefine out of existence under false colour of law) and so also disruptive to sound family life, proper upbringing and formation of personal identity. To see this last, a glance at lists of the many novel "genders" that have been put on the table will suffice. Though, the recent spectacle of individuals and even government agencies applauding court decisions they desired while seemingly failing to recognise the dangerous precedent of a judge claiming the power to implicitly rewrite a Constitution from the judicial bench. This last, patently manifests judicial over-reach and usurpation of legislative power at constitutional level; thus such threatens to undermine the legitimacy of constitutional democracy pivoting on a legislature made up in the main of elected representatives and backed by popular referendum power. That is a hard verdict, but unfortunately, it is a warranted one. As a civilisation, we need to recognise the sort of voyage we are being drawn into and the shipwreck likely to ensue if we do not turn back. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PST
In the 19th century Americans started moving west and three institutions went with them. There was vaudeville, traveling entertainment. There was lyceum, traveling education and culture. And there was the itinerant preacher, offering a new style of preaching called "hell fire and brim stone". It was very entertaining, only loosely based on scripture, and pastors didn't even try to compete. Instead they switched to preaching public morality and philosophy. Eventually an entire generation grew up not knowing the first thing about the religion they claimed to believe. That is why most Christian churches don't teach doctrines, and most members don't know what they are supposed to believe. Restating that conclusion: Modern Christians as a rule don't know what they are talking about.SmartAZ
May 9, 2019
May
05
May
9
09
2019
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PST
EG
BB at 144, I don’t normally agree with you but on this we concur.
:)Brother Brian
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PST
BB at 144, I don’t normally agree with you but on this we concur.Ed George
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PST
Well, I am pretty sure that this thread has run its course, and fallen limp into a sewage filled ditch. Time to leave.Brother Brian
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PST
BB, the facts are on the table. They are a direct implication of what you have said. And given the agit prop and lawfare push to impose that agenda, prudent people will take due notice. For example in that light, the so called Queen James "translation" is not merely parody, it implies where such would lead the church. Apostasy. Likewise, we can see very similar trends in various denoms, such as how the African bishops just had to stand up for a Methodist denom. We can add up two and two for our own selves. KF PS: Parody loaded renderings: Romans 1:26 Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another; (QJV) (Page 545) Romans 1:27 Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (QJV) (Page 545) 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous, (QJV) (Page 554) 1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (QJV) (Page 554) --> These are fed into a theological scheme of "reinterpretation" __> Contrast CARM: https://carm.org/queen-james-biblekairosfocus
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PST
Axel, Threat? Circular firing squad? Have you been reading the posts in the thread?daveS
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PST
'If you refuse to tell us precisely what these regulations entail and how they will respect our civil liberties, then naturally we will not take you seriously.' - DaveS @ #134 ET, @ #135, note the amusingly reflexive threat of DaveS, immediately before your post - evocative of the circular firing-squad metaphor.Axel
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PST
Brother Brian:
All I have been doing is explain that some of these teachings may be why people are leaving the church.
You don't have any idea. That is the fact.ET
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PST
KF
Hint, if you demand that the Christian faith apostasises from well founded truth and ethical principles as the price for you to involve yourself with the church, that is another way of saying that you are implacably hostile to the faith that drove the synthesis that founded modern post-pagan Western Civilisation.
Who is demanding that the Christian faith do anything? I am fine with the church continuing to teach what they do. All I have been doing is explain that some of these teachings may be why people are leaving the church. The fact that I disagree with some of these teachings is of no concern to me or the church as I am free to live my life the way I see fit. I choose to think that homosexuality, premarital sex, sex for pleasure and non-procreative reasons, masturbation, cohabitation without marriage, same sex marriage, birth control and being transgender are perfectly acceptable and should be accepted by society. This is not to say that there are no risks associated with any of these but that it is a person's right to accept that risk as long as it does no harm to others. And an intelligent and responsible person will take steps to manage and minimize these risks. This could include monogamy, serial monogamy, use of condoms, etc.Brother Brian
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PST
DS, you are right to be concerned about the lost war against the bugs. We need to be asking very pointed questions on that and where it leads. KF PS: My problem on HPV is the number of strains vs the number that have components of vaccines vs viral mutation rates (with an eye to the common cold/ influenza as yardstick of what is possible). Displacing which strains dominate does not solve the overall problem, and that is one set of viruses where condoms (already marginal given failure rate challenges) are not effective. And this concern extends far, far beyond STDs . . . though it came up in that context. We are in an arms race with micro-evo and that is not a good place to be. Here it is now routine for antibiotics to be prescribed in pairs and it is routine for that to not be particularly effective. The doctors are suspiciously -- let's not panic the public [familiar from the volcano] -- silent on the shift, and that got my attention bigtime, as we can add up two and two for ourselves.kairosfocus
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PST
daves:
No, I am very concerned with the impact antibiotic resistance/superbugs will have on public health.
And yet you are OK with lifestyles that would bring them about.ET
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PST
ET, No, I am very concerned with the impact antibiotic resistance/superbugs will have on public health. Two of my acquaintances (one a close neighbor and the other a family member) have died unexpectedly from infections that, although not caused by superbugs, we expected would be treatable.daveS
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PST
hazel, Ed, Brian and Dave are all ignorant of the fact that the Judge of all of our actions is the Only opinion that counts. You were given the free will to do whatever you want. You just have to deal with any consequences. Have your alleged civil liberties. You will be judged on your actions. People have to regulate themselves. They will have no one to blame but themselves when it comes time to be judged. kairosfocus is trying to save people and you morons are trying to make fun of that. Shame on you. You are pathetic people.ET
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PST
KF, I think most people (say, in the USA) are willing to take pragmatic steps to prevent the spread of superbugs (and even "regular" bugs such as HPV). But we also value our civil liberties. If you truly believe we should regulate various activities, you need to be very clear about what that would look like. Your coyness is undermining your argument. It hasn't been long (~16 years) since consensual oral sex between men in their own home was illegal in some states. We don't want to go back to that. If you refuse to tell us precisely what these regulations entail and how they will respect our civil liberties, then naturally we will not take you seriously.daveS
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PST
AS78, I indeed long since pointed to promiscuity (and to the way various acts either multiply exposure [i.e. Meese Commission members on fellatio in the streets] or open up microbe invasion routes [ponder, abrasion]) as a key problem. I further pointed to how in the broader context we have effectively lost the antibiotic war, with implications for viruses and yeasts etc also: we are going back to the pre-antibiotic days and need to re-learn the hard won daily life disciplined, diligent precautions for survival in an environment where a shaving nick could easily be fatal. Any reasonably informed person knows the implications of up to 1,000 sexual contacts -- many anonymous -- per year and the patient zero phenomenon or possibility you alluded to. I think we can take it that reasonably aware people know such or can quickly enough find enough facts to substantiate. There is a reason why popular sex manuals had to put warning labels on certain acts that were proscribed by the old sodomy and b-----ery laws. It is also blatantly obvious that our feelings (I'm in love/ infatuation/ lust etc) cannot justify the behaviour of morally governed creatures. Which includes that we are inescapably morally governed by duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness and uprightness etc. Marriage and family exist as Creation order, naturally evident means of moral government to safely channel sexual urges that can easily ruin a civilisation. Ponder, issues of fornication, promiscuity, adultery, incest, failure of men to defend their families even to the death. The thread above inadvertently exposes the real agenda: anti-civilisational and anti-Christian. We all need to pause and read again, Plato's parable of the ship of state, Bk VI, The Republic, and then ponder Luke's commentary by case study in Ac 27. KFkairosfocus
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PST
BB (attn H and EG et al), your setting up and knocking over of strawmen at 118, sadly, shows the fundamental irresponsibility and underlying open door to amorality, nihilism and chaos in your arguments. Along with H's further "unreadable" strawman, you persuade me to actually simply put 15 back on the table, noting that the cited remarks being addressed are your own, within the first 14 comments, and starting from no 1. The two embedded links go to a 101 on warrant for the credibility of the gospel (yes, including a fair bit of video viewing courtesy Strobel, Habermas and Craig et al), and the other is a book on the my genes made me do it thesis (which you tried to suggest has not been a material issue). Not a literary exercise but notes in response to various assertions, insinuations and inferences that are by and large both ill-founded and utterly revealing of the agendas afoot. Hint, if you demand that the Christian faith apostasises from well founded truth and ethical principles as the price for you to involve yourself with the church, that is another way of saying that you are implacably hostile to the faith that drove the synthesis that founded modern post-pagan Western Civilisation. In short, you are anti-civilisational AND anti-Christian; which immediately implies that your counsels are likely to be advice of ruin. A very good question to ask, then, is why? (Cf here, on that.) Okay, here goes: _____________ [BB:] >>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?>> [KF:] 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 [--> already cited] 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 [--> i.e. a corporate entity] 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 [--> statement or summary of a] law that is antecedent to what kings, parliaments or judges may decree. They [= agents of the state] 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. _______________ By no means a literary exercise, but it is clear that in the 100+ comments since, objectors have had no cogent reply on substance. Though, we know that they are ever so prone to imagine or claim rhetorical victories on fallacies of distraction, distortion, personalities and dismissal. It is time for sober-minded assessment of the voyage of folly our civilisation has clearly embarked on. KFkairosfocus
May 8, 2019
May
05
May
8
08
2019
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PST
AaronS1978 "Now let’s get back to the nitty-gritty of why people falling away from the church"
As to the claim that people are leaving the churches. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/religious-nones-the-bigger-picture-shows-increasing-polarization/#comment-676591 Conclusion: So apparently, despite the constant lies and propaganda, even violent coercion, from atheists, the future growth of Christianity in not nearly as bleak as some atheists have painted it to be, not even in America. In fact, it is ‘exploding’ (in Russia and China) exactly where atheists tried their damnedest to snuff it out. Whereas atheism is shrinking, even ‘dying’. as an overall percentage of the entire world population.,,, May it die completely!
bornagain77
May 7, 2019
May
05
May
7
07
2019
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PST
Holy cow! It took me like five minutes the scroll down here, five minutes this OP as exploded, and it’s still about homosexuality, stds and such which are all very hot button topics. The OP is about why people are possibly moving away from the church LOL Even though I think I’m pretty late to this party now sadly I’m also seeing a lot of people from both sides here mocking one another :( Now I just want to state a few things specifically about the diseases, I was fascinated with the entire subject This directly pertains to the spreading of diseases do to homosexuality and what Ive been reading above I challenged a friend of mine, who is gay, a long while back. I said if it was a homosexual couple that were Ground Zero for HIV and it spread through out their community, do you think that it would’ve actually had spread if they had remained faithful and monogamous to one another? He refused to answer the question because he knew what the actual answer was. The reason for diseases like these spreading had a lot to do with a couple things working in tandem and correlating with one another. Comically antibiotics did have a part in the spread of stds and their developed resistance to them as well. The other thing what is the advent of birth control. What both of these things had done was allow people To have sex more freely and frequently. Which helped fueled the sexual revolution. (Fun fact one of the first major advertisements for antibiotics was how it could cure gonorrhea in 24 hours. Nother fun fact gonorrhea was one of the first STDs to become very biologically resistant to antibiotics) People believed that they could use a quick fix and get rid of the disease as soon as they got it. They no longer needed to pay as much attention to the fact that they were still spreading the disease. They also didn’t know that it was becoming resistant to the very medicine that was in the enabling them to have sex more frequently. Another thing that contributed to this was birth control, all types condoms to hormonal birth control it made it easier to have sex without the ramifications of a child. (I do not support hormonal birth control for many different reasons one it does really mess with the woman’s cycle and her biology. Secondly it does nothing just prevent a disease. However condoms do and if you are going to use a Contraceptive use a condom it prevents everything in almost all cases) The increase in promiscuousness is actually the main source Of the spreading of STDs which is what I believe KF is getting at. Also not disregarding tradition as it does have consequences, some not immediately known. But there always seems to be a domino effect much like the sexual revolution that has lasting consequences. Now homosexuals were blamed for having HIV because the disease was spreading rapidly through the gay community. It was erroneously claimed that God was punishing them for being gay. Reality was, most people didn’t know they had it, too homosexual males had a tendency to have sex more frequently and unprotected then lesbian females which was the second reason why it spread so quickly throughout the gay community. It was a promiscuity That was the primary source of the disease spreading. If any claim that God was involved it was because of the fact that they were being promiscuous. Which brings me to my second point, promiscuity leads to the spread of stds, Certain contraceptives and antibiotics make it easier to be promiscuous, People do take advantage of this, Intern antibiotics are used more frequently to deal with the problem, And the bacteria respond in kind by becoming resistant to the very thing that we used to try to prevent them, which had enabled us to also be more promiscuous. Affectively we get a very vicious cycle that ends up creating a superbug that doesn’t give a shit about your personal preferences sexual preferences or any other preference or your political opinion. (Not trying to be mean here) Now certain ancient traditions like marriage and just being monogamous and faithful do help prevent these things. You can be an evolutionist and find value in what I just said, in fact I believe that was considered by evolutionary psychology one of the primary reasons for the evolution of monogamy to prevent diseases. It also prevents a lot of the psychological issues that happened between two individuals want to third-party enters into the equation. Now I’m starting a babble here and I apologize for that. But another part of my point is the idea of eroding tradition and I believe that’s a lot of what KF is get at is that eroding traditions like these have a tendency to lead to severe consequences that can be very harmful to everybody in general. Also eroding traditions has a tendency to have a domino effect. I’ll try to explain. If you reject and get rid of one tradition as it was unimportant then you go on to question another similar tradition as unimportant as well and then another and another. “ If this was silly and unimportant why is this” The idea is you just keep knocking down all of these old traditions without remembering the reason why they were there in the first place. Often to prevent something bad that was there in the first place, and when we remember it is often to late. So we might not understand why certain things are part of the moral law or we even agree with them. But often I usually look at that think “well there has to be a reason for it” and will try to find and way the reasons for why it exists. Hence why evo psychology constantly tries to explain ways why morality is good for you and that’s why it evolved the way it did. Even though I really don’t agree with much of evo psychology suggestions, As there are many of them and they all kind of require you to believe you were unaware of the reasoning of why they exist. Now I wrote this for a couple of posts ago! But dammit I’m going to use it when I waste all my time I took me a while to write this :p Now let’s get back to the nitty-gritty of why people falling away from the church I have a new reason left-handedness Remember according to Dutton you have a higher mutational load therefore you were more susceptible to being an atheist due to your mutational load and you all are infecting people with your mutational load. This is the real reason why lefties were bad in the church! ;) man I’m smart! I’m not :0AaronS1978
May 7, 2019
May
05
May
7
07
2019
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PST
Ed George, I'm sorry you feel that way. Since you are a troll, should I seek to be more trollish like you are so as to be more 'on topic'? Or should I just seek to have the administrators ban you for repeatedly pestering me? Rhetorical question, but you get the point.bornagain77
May 7, 2019
May
05
May
7
07
2019
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PST
BB, >When you see a couple, either homosexual or heterosexual, what outward clues do you see that they are more interested in sex than love? Conversations I have overheard are one way of knowing this. Another big clue is from gay pride marches: They are not marching so that they can have meaningful friendships with others of the same sex. They can have that with no one being critical of them. I have those relationships. They are marching for the one thing that makes their relationships different. Third, from the gay community's internal discussions on-line. Their most passionate subject internally is sex. Their criticisms of each other as a culture are sex-centered. So it is from them that I get this idea. >With respect, I suggest that your conclusion is drawn more from preconceived bias (prejudice) than from objective observation. Everyone is subject to bias, and I'm no exception. But the non-sexual aspects of homosexual relationships just don't make it to the surface first. ( Now I know more about males than females in this regard, so I'm not surprised Hazel's experiences are different from mine.)EDTA
May 7, 2019
May
05
May
7
07
2019
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PST
1 4 5 6 7 8 11

Leave a Reply