Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Wahoo Redux]

Sure.  I believe people are also shunning liberal religion.  Are you talking about Unitarianism or universalist churches?  I hadn't heard that but I believe it.  Overall, the Christian demographic is in decline everywhere. 

[Wahoo Redux]

The general argument against allowing polygamy is that the women are not really free to choose. So the "everybody is happy" criterion is the problem.

Not all sister wives, certainly.  I think there's a TV show about that.  And one could say something similar about all marriages.

The controversies I am aware of involve cult scenarios and the marriage of adolescents to elders, which is not necessarily the same thing as sister wives.  You are confusing the controversies.

If sister wives are happy, which some are, I don't see what the problem is.

The answer might be to get rid, voluntarily, of essentialist religion. 

So basically the church's value system should be determined by society at large. In which case it serves no useful purpose.

Well, buddy...as I've said, the church seems to be dying a slow death.

Put into Google "Why are churches dying?"  It's really very interesting.  Of course, churches have always responded to the zeitgeist, so that is not it.

What's too bad is that the church has a great deal to offer, but so often the focus is on judgment, not succor.

I make none of this up, Marshy.  I know it is not what you want to hear, but as the kids say, "It is what it is."

[marshwiggle]

The general argument against allowing polygamy is that the women are not really free to choose. So the "everybody is happy" criterion is the problem.

Not all sister wives, certainly.  I think there's a TV show about that.  And one could say something similar about all marriages.

The controversies I am aware of involve cult scenarios and the marriage of adolescents to elders, which is not necessarily the same thing as sister wives.  You are confusing the controversies.

If sister wives are happy, which some are, I don't see what the problem is.

The answer might be to get rid, voluntarily, of essentialist religion. 

In any country that isn't a theocracy, that's what individuals are free to do.

So basically the church's value system should be determined by society at large. In which case it serves no useful purpose.

Well, buddy...as I've said, the church seems to be dying a slow death.

Put into Google "Why are churches dying?"  It's really very interesting.  Of course, churches have always responded to the zeitgeist, so that is not it.

What's too bad is that the church has a great deal to offer, but so often the focus is on judgment, not succor.

I make none of this up, Marshy.  I know it is not what you want to hear, but as the kids say, "It is what it is."

In parenting, education, healthcare, and numerous other things, those aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact, succour often requires some degree of "judgement" to keep people from doing things that harm themselves. Since none of us is God, none of us can be absolutely sure on any issue of what degree of "judgement" is optimal.

Over the years, I've tried various rules about late work, all the way from strict-no-excuses deadlines to no-penalty-until-the-term-is-over. No matter what the rules were, some students fell through the cracks. Strict deadlines (aka "judgment") forced some to get things done, while some gave up. Total leniency (aka "succour") meant that some eventually got it done, while others put it off and eventually gave up.

Without divine insight, no-one can forsee what level of support and/or intervention will be the best for anyone.

[Wahoo Redux]

Yeah...okay.

Do you have a point?

[marshwiggle]

Yeah...okay.

Do you have a point?

Sure. "Warm and fuzzy to everyone" may sound great, but it's ultimately of very limited value. Real concern for people requires being willing to give unpleasant advice and/or instruction which will ultimately be in their best interest. And usually, they won't see at the moment why that would be the case. If they did, then they wouldn't need the involvement of anyone else.

[Wahoo Redux]

Yeah, I understood that.

Why are you saying that here?

Are you trying to justify a belief system by pointing out that morality is difficult and requires judgment that many people will object to?

Life 101, Marshy.

And dude, this is exactly what is happening to the church right now.  The church is receiving "unpleasant advice" and some people are upset about it.

[apl68]

I'm not aware of any cases where anybody is trying to use the law to compel gay, atheist, agnostic, etc. to work on Christian-oriented web sites when they have said that they don't want to do so.  But there is a definite move to go to Christian vendors of various services and tell them, in effect, "You will do what we demand of you regardless of what you believe, or we will use the law to hound you out of business."  If the right to do this becomes enshrined in U.S. court precedent, then I predict a fast tumble down a very slippery slope that will force large numbers of Christians with biblical views on marriage to either go against their consciences or be effectively driven out of their chosen businesses or professions, as activists actively go after them.  Looks like a religious freedom issue to me.

I agree.  It's frightening to me. 

This whole culture of government and employers dictating our speech and our beliefs is extremely alarming, and that is why I keep this thread ticking.  I focus mostly on college campus issues, and the tower has a controversy or an action somewhere in North America almost every other week.  And these are just what make the news. 

I would much rather the church face the private, personal, vernacular, grass roots opprobrium that it  is already experiencing because it cannot reason its way out of our last acceptable prejudice.

Well, then I guess we'll just have to face society's opprobrium.  New Testament teachings on sexual morality are pretty clear in permitting sexual intimacy only within the context of marriage, which in turn is very clearly described as a monogamous, committed relationship between a woman and a man.  I grant you, we could do what the mainline churches have long since done and conclude that when it's a contest between what the New Testament says and what society says, then it's time to kick the Word of God to the curb.  Once a church has determined that its teachings should all follow the lead of whatever is currently accepted by society at any give time, then it no longer has anything distinctive to offer.  Hence the galloping decline we've seen in the mainline churches.

But some of us don't want to do that.  The first time Christians--Peter and John, to be specific--are recorded as being called on the carpet and told to shut up, they responded: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you be the judge.  We can only speak the things we have seen and heard." 

American churches have a long history of acquiescing to things that aren't compatible with New Testament teaching--the slave trade, warlike forms of nationalism, rapacious economic systems--the list could go on.  That willingness to trim sails to whatever was the going ideology in society is part of how we came, for a time at least, to have a society overwhelmingly made of professing Christians.  Society and the church made it easy to belong to the church.  The visible church, at least.  There has always been a true church of actual, serious followers of the New Testament within that.  Now that the broader society has given up even pretending to be on board with Christian teaching, the fact that some Christian churches are looking more and more out of step with society may we be a sign that they're doing something right.

[Wahoo Redux]

This is your right, Apl, and I celebrate it.

Freedom of religion is paramount. 

At the same time, I will also exercise my right to free speech in objecting to certain beliefs based on a series of mythological stories of great beauty and significance which, nevertheless, come from a time and place much different from our own.

I celebrate both our rights to believe.

And, again, I make nothing up about the decline in church membership.  It exists.  Make of that what you will.

The Bible DOES make very specific reference to the treatment of slaves and women, of course, which would not be acceptable at all in today's society.

[dismalist]

Now that the broader society has given up even pretending to be on board with Christian teaching, the fact that some Christian churches are looking more and more out of step with society may we be a sign that they're doing something right.

It must be recognized that the US is very religious compared to rich European countries.

https://thefora.org/index.php?action=post;topic=2202.870;last_msg=119218

In response to the question "Is religion important in your daily life?",

67% of Americans said yes, but only 54% of the Irish, 40% of Germans, 30% of the French, and 25% of the British.

The cause is clearly variety and competition of religious institutions in the US compared to state sanctioned or monopolistic churches. Religion is alive and well in the United States.

[Here in Northern Virginia there's a church every couple of blocks, or at least so it seems.]

[jimbogumbo]

And the Methodists (the denomination I grew up in) are torn by the same societal issues: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/09/methodist-church-lgbtq-slavery-00073112

[marshwiggle]

The Bible DOES make very specific reference to the treatment of slaves and women, of course, which would not be acceptable at all in today's society.

Absolutely. In a similar way, it would be fascinating to see how "progressive" views today would (will) be viewed by people 2000 or more years in the future.

[Wahoo Redux]

The Bible DOES make very specific reference to the treatment of slaves and women, of course, which would not be acceptable at all in today's society.

Absolutely. In a similar way, it would be fascinating to see how "progressive" views today would (will) be viewed by people 2000 or more years in the future.

And "conservative" views----how do you suppose history will treat them?

2,000 years from now, provided the human species doesn't annihilate itself, culture will undoubtedly be so different that the future people will not be able to relate to our particular cultural confusion.

[marshwiggle]

The Bible DOES make very specific reference to the treatment of slaves and women, of course, which would not be acceptable at all in today's society.

Absolutely. In a similar way, it would be fascinating to see how "progressive" views today would (will) be viewed by people 2000 or more years in the future.

And "conservative" views----how do you suppose history will treat them?

2,000 years from now, provided the human species doesn't annihilate itself, culture will undoubtedly be so different that the future people will not be able to relate to our particular cultural confusion.

And yet, we are perfectly able to relate to, and judge, the culture of equally far in the past. (Why can't those future people get a clue???)

[Wahoo Redux]

Certainly, Marshman, the future people will observe our essential humanity.  But there is no guarantee they will care or be able to comprehend our prejudices in the way we do any more than we can comprehend human sacrifices or burning someone at the stake (other than Foucault, that is).

But now you are just being contrarian.  Say something worthwhile or we should drop it.

[marshwiggle]

Certainly, Marshman, the future people will observe our essential humanity.  But there is no guarantee they will care or be able to comprehend our prejudices in the way we do any more than we can comprehend human sacrifices or burning someone at the stake (other than Foucault, that is).

But now you are just being contrarian.  Say something worthwhile or we should drop it.

The point is that if you evaluate people of any culture displaced sufficiently in time or space from the present by the standards of here and now, they will just be bizarre and/or evil. Doing so makes the study of history beyond a few decades ago totally pointless, since "progress" will only be recognizable when it is to more or less the status quo.  On the other hand, if you are going to acknowledge that change has happened over generations, then it only makes sense to view the actions of individuals and societies primarily in relation to their peers and/or to the generations immediately preceding or succeeding them, rather than to those centuries apart.