If you disagree, please disagree and state what you think and why. But no discussion ever goes anywhere good when we spiral down to calling each other's opinions "nonsense". Please don't do that.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Death/Loss Of Religion In America (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter rockaction
- Start date
BeTheMatch
Footballguy
You just blew my mind. For real.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I strongly disagree with the notion that Judeo-Christian teaching is the foundation of morality in Western society. I think the opposite side of that argument is easier to make - that religious institutions are often used to shield immoral attitudes and behaviors behind a cloak of superiority, righteousness and mysticism. Personally, my sense of morality comes from my parents and from the observations I've made in my lifetime. My kids attended Jesuit schools and I certainly do not rely on those institutions or the people in them to impart morality to my kids (although I think learning about and participating in the Catholic mission is a positive foundational experience for them.) I also strongly disagree with the notion that rejection of religion leads to immorality, unmoored and adrift, and would similarly argue that the opposite is more likely true for me.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
@Jayrod how would you define "Judeo-Christian" morality?
You mention that "most of what every single one of us think is right and wrong comes from Biblical teachings." Much of society has evolved past slavery. The Bible, at times, seemingly condones it: 1 Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.
Much of society has evolved to treat women and men equally. The Bible: 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
At times the Bible seemingly condones rape and genocide: Deuteronomy 20:10-14 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.
Do you disagree with the Bible on these counts? If so, where did your morality on the subjects come from?
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
I don't recall this at all. As a pretty far left person myself, I can probably count the number of times we agreed on one hand.You obviously never visited the PSF, one side hated him because he was a raging Democrat, the other side hated him because he was a raging Jesus freak
(hopefully he isn't offended by that comment, none was intended)
You obviously never visited the PSF, one side hated him because he was a raging Democrat, the other side hated him because he was a raging Jesus freak
(hopefully he isn't offended by that comment, none was intended)
I'm not offended in the least by that. And if I was, I'd have to just get over it as that's how it was.Oh well.
And no, we're not resurrecting the PSF so let's not get off on that track. Getting rid of that was the best thing we've done in years.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'll allow this as long as we stipulate that Billy Graham would have been a Jesus equivalentPresbyterians don't have a Pope but if we did, I think it would have been Tim Keller.
He consistently put into words how I think it's best to be a Christian.
This one is about 10 minutes long but he speaks about how Evangelism in the 21st century. It's about 12 years old but I think still relevant.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.youtu.be
The Commish
Footballguy
Yeah....Jesus cared/cares only about one thing...us, the individuals and how we follow his teachings. Add me to this crew.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
If we're talking about a particular individual, I'm inclined to agree. If you tell me that you personally would be equally moral with or without religion, I believe you.
On a societal level, I'm not so sure. I never made the "society will go to hell in handbasket" argument back in the early 2000s and I always cringed a little when other people made that argument. But facts are facts. Put yourself in the shoes of somebody who was inclined to say back in 2000 that a decline in religiosity would lead to social decay down the road. That person probably feels strongly vindicated right now, and I have to admit that they're probably right to feel that way. I certainly assign much more credence to that argument than I used to.
What would have to happen for you to change your mind on this point? Like, specifically, what sort of social changes would have to occur for you to step back and say that maybe religion was more load-bearing than you thought?
(If I thought that the decline of Christianity would lead to social breakdown, something that would probably cause me to reconsider would be if we looked over the next 20-30 time horizon and saw that things were more or less as they were in the 1990s, with families faring similarly, kids growing up into healthy young adults at similar rates, comparable rates of mental wellness, and so on. That's what I would have predicted in 2000, and that prediction would have been wrong.)
Steeler
Footballguy
This idea isn't fully formed in my own head, lol, so let's explore it.
It's deeper than being of a particular tribe. I'm saying if someone's political POV brings a set of morals to bear on society, why shouldn't someone's faith based beliefs be brought to the table as well?
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
I'd go with economic policy
Can you elaborate more on what you mean and with an example maybe?
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Right, Correlation does not equal causation. Otherwise we could say that the decline in Christianity has led to greater rights and economic prosperity for the historically underprivileged.
Meanwhile, you don't need to be on Facebook too long to see very angry, unhappy Christians.
I also think there's some cherry-picking going on to reach a conclusion that society is in moral decline because of a reduction of religiosity in this country. It's probably fair to assume that our Colonial ancestors were more religious than we are now. They also held slaves, limited women's rights, and practiced wretched methods of criminal punishment. Were they more moral?
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I disagree with the notion that observing our societal changes over the past few decades proves the truth of one theory or another relating to this discussion. I don't particularly recall those debates back in the early 2000's but would guess that anyone who made a prediction back then and tied their wagon to one star or another is probably patting themselves on the back and feels vindicated today, regardless of which "side" they were on at the time. I think I'm probably just not really aware of the broad "facts" that support the phenomena you're referring to - meaning I don't dispute it but just don't know. In my little corner of the world, I would say our culture is still very religious - referring to my neighbors, friends and professional colleagues, notwithstanding the polls and statistics @rockaction cited in the OP. I also don't perceive any tangible broad social decay going on over the past 20 years or so but would guess that broad changes like this are probably very hard to tie to one or another specific trend. Some areas of breakdown or negative stress factors across a broad social spectrum are probably related to changes in religiosity, whereas others may be more tied to economics, public policy, education, etc.
timschochet
Footballguy
I am an atheist and I voted “bad”. Essentially I feel safer among religious people. I think that, overall, they’re more likely to be good.
SWC
Bromigo
damn straight bromigo take that to the bank
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I agree that social trends can't definitively "prove" something like this. That's totally the wrong standard. What I'm saying is that if you assigned, say, 10% probability to the statement "the decline of religion will worsen social outcomes" in 2020, the weight you assign to that statement today should be > 10%. You should be adjusting your priors upward, but not all the way to 100%.
Thanks. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why you think that?
Judge Smails
Footballguy
Great discussion. In our town it absolutely became political. Matter of fact a pastor ran for city council and was elected. It was a nightmare. He then resigned after using his post to further beliefs, including the anti-vaxer movement. He just ignored all mandates - above it all. Gathered people in large groups in the midst of lockdown, etc.
Thanks GB. That feels like something we should explore more.
I do think it's an interesting thing.
Some random thoughts. (and I know you know all this stuff @Yankee23Fan , I'm mostly just thinking out loud)
There's a ton of talk in the Old Testament about nations (usually Israel) and how they did as a country under the leadership of the King. There's very much a vibe of a nation operating in accordance with or rebelling against God. And you get the clear impression it's a big deal for the nation to conduct itself in accordance with God.
So it's not a huge jump for citizens of our country to draw a parallel between now and then and want our nation to be in accordance with God. I get it.
But a few points.
1. The United States is not Israel. If you believe the bible, Israel and its people have a sacred relationship with God. As shocking as it seems, to the best of my knowledge, there's no mention of the United States of America in the Bible.
2. While there's a lot of talk about nations and governments operating in accordance with and pleasing God in the Old Testament. But in the New Testament, not so much. (Not to go Sunday School, but for folks that didn't know, the Old Testament is basically time before Jesus and the New Testament starts with Jesus and the four books (called the Gospels) about his life and then letters from church leaders to churches with instruction on how to operate).
3. Jesus lived in a time when the government where he lived was opposed to what he was doing. Being a Christian in Jesus' time meant to be literally persecuted. Not having to deal with the horror of "Happy Holidays" on your coffee cup.
Yet Jesus taught very little about government or politics. And what he did say was pretty clearly not overly involved in politics. when he was questioned about if one should honor the government and pay taxes, he said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." And it's not like he was just chill and didn't criticize anything. Jesus was extremely critical of the church leadership.
TL;DR version: Jesus didn't seem very political.
Steeler
Footballguy
I can't think of an example that is not political which is why I'm trying to keep it more general. I'm saying everyone lives by a set of moral based on their actions/beliefs. If you allow that definition of morals then non-believers (not a slight, just a description) get to bring their morals to bear in the political arena, but someone who believes in God can't do it as freely because of "separation of church and state". I guess I'm saying that doesn't create an equal playing field in politics if one set of morals is dismissed because those morals are associated with religion. And I'm definitely saying keeping religion out of politics does not keep morality out of politics. I voted "bad" for society, so maybe I'm lamenting the lack of religious based morality in our political discourse that has let to the societal decline Ivan was talking about.
Thanks. I can see that.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
The suggestion that "someone who believes in God can't ... bring their morals to bear in the political arena" seems demonstrably, obviously false to me. We currently have the most openly pious, president in my lifetime and a congress and supreme court that are dominated by proud open Christians (as has been the case forever.) Non-believers accept this with no problem as it is completely normal in our society and always will be. I'd say we'll more likely have a gay black woman president in this country long before an openly atheist politician would sniff the ballot. Offhand I can't think of a single political leader in my lifetime - in Washington or local or whatever - who was an atheist (not that it hasn't happened, just that its unknown to me.) This is equally true on a smaller, local level as well. It is completely normal and expected for people at a business lunch, dinner party or group of guys on the golf course to openly discuss their church and their religion, but would be completely out of bounds for someone in that setting to proclaim their atheism. If a client is talking to me about his church, something that happens all the time, I would never dream of interjecting that I am a non-believer. I think someone who made this their common practice - openly speaking up about their atheism - would be ostracized from the business community where I live.
Where is that?
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Milwaukee Wisconsin. I've also lived in Austin TX and Chicago and would say the same - I have never experienced open atheism to be acceptable in public life where I've lived. I think non-Christians (Jewish and Islamic people for example) have their own legitimate complaints but can be open about their religion and still be accepted in business, politics, teaching, etc. but an open atheist is still almost completely unheard of. I'm not complaining about persecution or something here, just noting that it is very odd for me to hear someone say that religious morals are somehow excluded from public or political life in this country.
Thanks. That's interesting. I've not been to Milwaukee much but spent a good bit of time in Chicago and especially Austin and I wouldn't for one second think being an Atheist would be a problem there vs proclaiming to be a Christian. That's fascinating.
For politicians, a list here.
Steeler
Footballguy
I completely disagree with this. Joe is a Catholic in name only. You know a tree by it's fruit.
Hi @CletiusMaximus, to make sure I'm understanding. Would you say you strongly agree with this statement? "In Chicago, I think someone who made this their common practice - openly speaking up about their atheism - would be ostracized from the Chicago business community."
BeTheMatch
Footballguy
Oh, here we go...
I don't think I've heard anyone say this before regarding President Biden. Thanks for sharing. I always learn something from the forums and that's a new one for me.
But again, let's leave it at that. @BeTheMatch is right in we don't want to get off track.
Jayrod
Footballguy
Study history. It's there in the vast majority of non-Christian civilizations. Slavery, rape, murder, brutality, etc. were always present. And today, do you think the China, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India, etc. are beacons of morality as states who have basically outlawed Christianity? Western society was turned into something different than had ever existed due directly the expansion of Christianity. What you, I and every American think of as "moral" came from being raised in a Judeo-Christian society.
As for #4, hard to prove correlation, but the timelines match in our current society and again, I point to purely atheistic societies (China & NK primarily) as having a decline in family stability and mental health.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I would say its very common for professionals, judges, etc. to openly discuss their religion in public but have never ever heard someone in a professional setting volunteer the information that they are a non-believer. Being publicly ostracized is a bit different - someone who's already in a position of power can say anything. If someone is interviewing for a position at a bank or a law firm, it would be perfectly normal for them to discuss where they go to church for example, or the fact that their kids attend a religious school, but likely a huge mistake to disclaim religion in that setting.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
My business partner and long-time close friend is an extremely pious Catholic. He sent me an article a few years ago that made that statement almost exactly - I think it was from a Catholic magazine maybe but I don't recall for certain. Its not about morals or politics but more his public behavior - crossing himself in public settings and attending mass every week, etc. The gist of the article was that Catholics specifically have never been more represented across our national political leadership. President, 6 of 9 SCOTUS judges, much of the cabinet, Speaker, etc.
But is really beside my main point, which was just contradicting the notion that Christians have to suppress their religious morals in politics whereas non-believers are free to assert their non-religious beliefs. Its a concept that is for me the complete opposite of reality.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
I think you're cherry-picking the moral standards of Christianity that still align with today's sense of ethics and ignoring those that society has deemed antiquated and unethical. The latest Christian-based 'moral standard' on the chopping block is how we treat gays and trans people while the Catholic church still struggles with how much authority women should have.
Aside from that, for your hypothesis to be true, you'll need an adequate explanation for why countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, who are the most irreligious in the world, also consistently rate as the happiest.
BlackCrowes
Footballguy
Forget specifically who you’re referring to, you’re saying a parent with an immoral child can’t have genuine faith?
Thanks. That's fascinating and very different from how I see the reality. Thanks for sharing.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
Aren't all of those justified in the bible under the right conditions?
No, he was talking about President Biden. There are widely differing views here about how pious he is. Let's leave it at that please.
BlackCrowes
Footballguy
Was more curious about “ you know a tree by its fruit”
That one can be something for discussion here just keeping it general and not to President Biden.
I'm pretty sure what he means there is actions say a lot about the person. I don't think he means "fruit" as in children.
It's from the book of Matthew where Jesus says,
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I would argue we don't even need to worry about the Old Testament. Christ said He was the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets. And then He gave His command as that fulfillment, love one another as I loved you. Do that and you follow all the law and prophets.
Thanks GB. That feels like something we should explore more.
I do think it's an interesting thing.
Some random thoughts. (and I know you know all this stuff @Yankee23Fan , I'm mostly just thinking out loud)
There's a ton of talk in the Old Testament about nations (usually Israel) and how they did as a country under the leadership of the King. There's very much a vibe of a nation operating in accordance with or rebelling against God. And you get the clear impression it's a big deal for the nation to conduct itself in accordance with God.
So it's not a huge jump for citizens of our country to draw a parallel between now and then and want our nation to be in accordance with God. I get it.
But a few points.
1. The United States is not Israel. If you believe the bible, Israel and its people have a sacred relationship with God. As shocking as it seems, to the best of my knowledge, there's no mention of the United States of America in the Bible.
2. While there's a lot of talk about nations and governments operating in accordance with and pleasing God in the Old Testament. But in the New Testament, not so much. (Not to go Sunday School, but for folks that didn't know, the Old Testament is basically time before Jesus and the New Testament starts with Jesus and the four books (called the Gospels) about his life and then letters from church leaders to churches with instruction on how to operate).
3. Jesus lived in a time when the government where he lived was opposed to what he was doing. Being a Christian in Jesus' time meant to be literally persecuted. Not having to deal with the horror of "Happy Holidays" on your coffee cup.
Yet Jesus taught very little about government or politics. And what he did say was pretty clearly not overly involved in politics. when he was questioned about if one should honor the government and pay taxes, he said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." And it's not like he was just chill and didn't criticize anything. Jesus was extremely critical of the church leadership.
TL;DR version: Jesus didn't seem very political.
IMHO.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I don't know. I think my purge idea has merit. Open it once a year for 24 hours. No rules.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
How do you see reality? Do you commonly encounter openly atheist people in business, political and social circles? Or are you saying it is not common for people to publicly acknowledge their faith? That's not been my experience anywhere I've ever lived so maybe we're miscommunicating.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I don't always like answering these, because they are often used as some kind of "gotcha" moment, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer the questions.
Slavery - I don't believe the Bible "condones" it as in endorsement. It deals with it as a reality. Jesus never said a word about it and Paul gives practical instructions to those that are involved in it (slaves and owners). The end of slavery in the world was kicked off by the abolitionist movement beginning in Christian Europe in the late 1700's following the Enlightenment and strongly driven by the Quakers and other evangelic Christian groups. If you lived at any time prior to that, you wouldn't have likely had any qualms at all about slavery as it was practiced everywhere in every culture. Now we see it as abuse of fellow humanity and that all humans are worthy of equal honor and respect. This is a very uniquely Christian idea that came about through the teachings of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Teaching Women in Church - This doesn't really seem like a "moral discussion", but a social issue in our modern society where telling women they can't do something is seen as misogynistic. I would note what Paul says in 1 Timothy, "I do not permit". He doesn't say it as a command to Timothy and other churches (i.e. "Do not permit") or indicate it is a command from God. It may have been a cultural thing as Paul was a Jew and had a very Jewish male dominated background and as did most societies in that day. Just before that he also says he doesn't want women to wear elaborate hairstyles or gold, pearls and expensive clothes in church. It is kind of a grey area in many churches today and some still hold that women can't be pastors. There is certainly no moral harm done in not allowing women to teach men.
Rape - There is nowhere in the Bible that condones rape. "Take as plunder" means as slaves and to marry as wives. OT is very specific about sexually immorality and no one was to engage in sex outside of a marital contract, which included concubines (polygamy was common and not condemned). Biblical sexual morality is consistently applied and is far stricter than anything in our current society. Marriage after divorce (except for adultery) is considered adultery. Looking at a woman lustfully is considered adultery of the heart. Rape is condemned in the Bible and is a historically unique Judeo-Christian value. If you look at almost any other society that developed outside of the Judeo-Christian influence and you will see rape as a very common practice (Vikings, Mongols, Comanches, Japanese, etc.)
Genocide - yes this was actually commanded on occasion of the Israelites when they were conquering the people in the land they were to possess. Note verse 10 (giving them a chance to surrender) which was rarely offered in that time period and also v 14 (spare the women and children). In the Old Testament, God often used war and conquering of lands as a means of judgement. Not sure we have greater morals today anyway on the whole idea of war anyway. It is hell and is sometimes needed to stop further evils (Nazis, WW2 & atomic bombs and all).
In short there are a few big things that were radical and uniquely Judeo-Christian. Namely the equality of humans including the rejection of abuse of power and sexual morality. Until Christianity's influence these things are rarely seen if ever in other societies. Slavery was driven out by Christian values as was rape and the development of what is a "war crime". Every American's morality is shaped by this societal influence of Christianity.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Gotta take Cletius' side on this one. This is my experience too, and I work around extremely secular people.
To clarify, my secular people are open about being secular and us church-goers are open about it. Nobody in my little world is suppressing this. (Unlike politics -- you would be an idiot to out yourself as a right-winger in higher ed these days.)
Steeler
Footballguy
Thanks Joe, that's what I meant.
I think there might have been some confusion on "sides".
I think most everyone agrees with: "To clarify, my secular people are open about being secular and us church-goers are open about it. Nobody in my little world is suppressing this. (Unlike politics -- you would be an idiot to out yourself as a right-winger in higher ed these days.)"
Similar threads
