I think most churches think they are forces for good. They just define “good” and “bad” differently. I think the traditional stance on male-male homosexual intercourse is the most clear-cut example of this. I always thought Leviticus was pretty clear about that. No idea how churches like the Jubilee Baptist Church get around that.
~Max
But even that’s not true. It was possible to reject god without a theory for evolution. Not only possible, but rational. If you are posed with a mystery and lack the evidence to come to a conclusion on what caused it, the proper answer isn’t “God did it, and therefore god exists,” it’s “I don’t know, more investigation is required.”
Atheism did not begin with Darwin. There was no more evidence for the existence of a god the day before Darwin published his work On the Origin of the Species than there was the day after.
By your friend’s logic, even if he or she hasn’t realized it yet, we would still “need” a god just because there is a mystery around precisely how life formed on this planet (and in the Universe, whether it exists elsewhere or not) and because once the “Big Bang” gets compressed down to a certain point, our current understanding of nature fails us. Your friend’s logic is faulty, and there are many religious apologists making youtube videos who use the same logic, expanded to other questions—beyond the diversity of life—to which science still doesn’t have an answer beyond “don’t know”, to “prove” that god exists. To all their questions, the answer is “actually, we do have a pretty good idea based on current evidence” or “we don’t know,” not “Gosh, you’re right, science can’t explain it, but it happened, so I guess it’s reasonable to believe in god!”
The same way other churches get around the parts of the Bible they don’t wish to follow.
Exactly…
~Max
Leviticus is also pretty clear about a lot of other things being forbidden, including, but not limited to:
I suspect that the vast majority of conservative Christians who point to that verse in Leviticus about homosexuality are regularly in violation of one or more of the above.
When a faith points to one line in the Bible, and makes it a moral imperative, but chooses to not place the same imperatives on other, similar lines in the same book, because they aren’t convenient…this is a reason why younger people are turning away from Christian churches.
I don’t think they “get around that.” It’s probably more that they don’t think a person’s sexuality is something that defines the caliber of a person’s character.
They probably use the same technique that you and other conservative Christians get around the rest of Leviticus. Because that book also forbids wearing clothing woven of two kinds of material, getting tattoos, cutting the hair at the sides of your head and clipping the edges of your beard, and eating any meat with blood in it. But somehow I’ve never seen a preacher go on a long rant about poly-cotton blends or people eating bloody prime rib, I’ve seen plenty of crosses and bible verses as tattoos, and it’s very rare to see a preacher who doesn’t have their hair cut short or one who grows a beard. Most damningly for conservative churches, It also says “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” which is very, very much not the conservative position on the foreign born in the US today.
The fact that so many self-proclaimed “Christians” today support a host of anti-immigrant laws and actions when the Bible states clearly that all immigrants should be treated as native born, but also claim that other people must be condemned based on a passage in the same book of the bible is a great example of the sort of thing that drives people away from the church. It’s even worse when one considers that the translation of the ‘man with another man’ bit is disputed, that there are a significant number of people who argue that the correct translation of the passage actually only forbids male incest, not all male-on-male relations.
I think my maternal grandparents follow all of those things in their personal lives. But they aren’t most conservative Christians. ETA: Or conservative. Or Christian.
~Max
What can I say? None of you are wrong. People have been leaving religion in pursuit of “more rational” beliefs for a long time now.
I still think the driving force behind the low rate of millennials returning to religion is that millennials didn’t attend regular services during childhood. Having less originally religious people to begin with, and an increased likelihood that one or both parents didn’t attend church regularly during childhood, means that even less people are going to go back to church when they have kids.
~Max
One major change that has happened over time is that the church is not at the center of social life like it once was. At one time, getting together on Sunday was a major social event and various church events were a major way for adults to find other adults to socialize with. And knowing which church someone went to was an important part of getting to know them. Obviously other avenues existed, and this was a much stronger effect in small towns, but it was definitely a major part of life. But the 20th century with TV, telephones, cars, various entertainment locales, and later on the internet broke a lot of the push to join a church socialization needs. (Again, this wasn’t a 100% thing either before or after, just a trend). And work on civil liberties in the 20th century meant that being asked what church you go to by your employer became much more frowned upon.
With churches doing fewer social activities and people seeing them as not needed for it, plus the loss of soft pressure in the form of needing a good answer to’which church do you go to’ to be on good terms at your job, a lot of the motivation to join a church and to see it as a positive thing went away. While the negative aspects of organized religion loom large in why people might turn away, I think the diminishing positive roles plays a major part in people deciding not to come back.
I’m a boomer, and I was pretty agnostic by the time I was halfway through elementary school (Catholic school, at that). I was full on atheistic by high school. And I ain’t going back either.
Leviticus is very clear on it, and every homophobic Baptist that I know eats shrimp and wears clothing of two materials. Leviticus is just as clear on those issues also. The hypocrisy of religion is I believe a big reason many people are leaving.
I came here to pretty much say the same thing. For many people, it was a place to see and be seen, whether they believed the church’s teachings or even thought about it very much.
I would say spiritual. The people in England who wanted to declare their religion as “Jedi” I don’t think were religious in the traditional sense. But this holds for those who see spirituality as personal, and who don’t need to go to a meeting place to practice it.
I think a lot of people are spiritual (I’m not) and a world of lots of spirituality and very little religion would be a big improvement.
That could explain why attendance at Disney’s new Star Wars theme park isn’t doing so well. What’s it called? Jedi’s Cove? Anyway, you don’t need to go to Disney World to be one with the force. The force is in everything. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.
Well, the Biblical prohibition on homosexuality isn’t just OT - it’s New Testament as well.
Religion is NOT declining in American life, because it is a myth in the first place that Americans have always been so religious. In fact, Americans generally have just made themselves out to be religious for appearances’ sake, and because of social pressure.
As Pantastic and nearwildheaven imply, to the degree that Americans participated in religious organization it has mostly been for social expedience. Americans, by and large, are not religious–they’re materialist through and through, to the exclusion of actual religious behavior, beyond what they do for show.
So, really, the data from the article in the OP is misleading from the start, because it assumes the premise that somehow Americans actually were so religious.
More important would be data that (reliably) shows whether “millennials” (a false category in itself) actually are any less materialistic than people before.
yes but prohibitions are prohibitions, hypocritical Christians say they have a new convent so the OT prohibitions don’t matter. Of course Jesus said he didn’t come to change the law. And if God and Jesus are the same then when God said it in Leviticus it still caries into the NT since it wasn’t repealed. I stand by my statement of the hypocrisy in Christianity as part of the reason for the decline.
They’ll be back. There are no atheists in fox holes. Once they are faced with the mortality of their parents, spouse, child, or their own mortality, they will wake up and become more philosophical about life and what does it all mean? What does their life means? I will agree on one point, however…there are no foxes in church.
My grandfather was.