Indeed. I think I have been clear from the beginning…I don’t have any preconceptions, I have faith. I also think that many “Christian” practices are not scripturally sound, or at least would be considered hypocrisy by Jesus. My point was only that I saw consistencies between the article and the preaching. Interesting how it struck a nerve so quickly. I was actually reading Acts 17 in reference to something that was said and think that it is particularly appropriate for many of the discussions on the forum. I will point out though, that Babylon, Pharaoh’s Egypt, and Ancient Greece are all societies that eventually deteriorated. As will ours, as the bible says it will.
For those that think I have a Christian agenda, I do not. I seek truth, serve Christ as He instructs, and I value the opinions of all but do not tolerate sin in my own life. That is my stance when I speak of tolerance, I am not judging others, I am holding myself accountable.
I am not lamenting merely the decline of Christianity. Although I think in my area this virus has really brought out the worst in society and shown a general decline. Workers refusing to work, strange attitudes from workers, people looking for all they can take and nothing they can give. Rioting, looting, destruction of store fronts. Certainly the largest decline I’ve seen in my lifetime. Perhaps others have a broader more complete view than mine. But, from where I stand, all the progress I thought I saw evidence of in my life is gone. Right back to race riots, nationalism and communism. People filming public safety officers performing “routine” stops. Empty shelves, slow service, lack of timely response to necessary correspondences. If not a decline, I am unsure what I am seeing. People used to say bless you when someone sneezed now I’ve repeatedly seen dirty glares. I’m disgusted pretty much every time I leave the house.
Do you know Gleeden, a French app that explicitly promotes adultery and that flooded the Parisian subway with advertising posters. https://images.app.goo.gl/Uje81KriAt3CJhn78
I already conceded the failures. The West has imperfectly realized its own highest ideals. But the fact remains that only in the West, not in India or China or the Islamic world, did the features of the modern world which the left-wing atheists here praise – liberal democracy, better treatment of women, equality, etc. – arise. Within Christianity there were emphases that could make this possible. Compare the teaching that in Christ there is neither male nor female, neither slave nor free, with the description of male and female, Brahmin and sudra, in the Vedic texts. You aren’t going to get Mary Wollestonecraft or Abraham Lincoln out of those texts. And even though democracy had some initial beginnings in Greece and Rome, it was sporadic within those civilizations, and “tolerance” of dissident views or habits was not a particularly common virtue.
To go one step further, Christian parents probably wouldn’t be happy with teachers leading students in Muslim prayers or the worship of Hindu gods. Imagine if the teacher led the class in some Satanic rituals.
The idea of keeping government out of religious life is a good one, and worth preserving.
One of the tenets of secular humanism is religious freedom.
I’ll tell you where we went wrong: it was when we stopped marking adulterers with scarlet A’s and when we eliminated the ducking stool. Don’t get me started on no longer burning witches.
Granted, but it’s a habit of a number of secular humanists to take nasty potshots at religion in general and at Christianity (the majority religion in the US) in particular. And it would be interesting to look carefully at the newest curricula in the public schools regarding various aspects of human sexuality. Do they sometimes step over the line to imply that traditional Christian judgments on such subjects are wrong? For example, if in civics class students learn that “In the USA homosexuals have the right to live together as couples” that is a non-evaluative statement, and can be taught to students as a fact that is neutral between secular humanism and Christian religious faith; but if in health class students are taught that homosexual relationships are morally as good as heterosexual relationships, the implicit teaching is that traditional Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim) sexual morality is erroneous; and that is a value judgment which favors secular humanism over Christianity. Should a Christian parent have to pay taxes to fund such statements, and should Christian children have to submit to hearing such statements? Statements that might be as offensive to some of them as a school prayer is to an agnostic or atheist?
I’m all for the neutrality of the state, but I’m on guard to make sure that it is carried out in practice. The perception of many Christians (right or wrong) is that it isn’t always carried out in practice, that in all kinds of subtle ways the schools and other public institutions subtly favor or promote anti-Christian values. The fact that many Christians citizens perceive things in this way surely deserves at least as much attention as claims by atheists, Muslims, or any other group that public institutions subtly work against their beliefs. You wouldn’t want perceptions of discrimination against atheists dismissed as whining, but to be properly investigated; and the same degree of respect should be accorded to the perceptions of others.
Yet for most of the over a millennium and a half of Christian hegemony over Europe, little progress occurred. It was only when the humanistic influences of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment weakened the grip of the church that liberty started to flourish.
I would also point out that many (most?) of the advances – the Civil Rights movement, womens’ rights, etc have been opposed by a large section of the Christian community, particularly (in the US) traditionally-white Evangelical churches.
I would further point out a large swathe of the modern world where overt Christianity has gone hand in hand with the curtailment of rights, and even outright Totalitarianism – from Mussolini’s Italy, through Franco’s Spain, Pinochet’s Chile and the Argentinian Junta of the 1970s and 80s to contemporary Poland.
And are you arguing that it’s not “a habit of a number of” Christians “to take nasty potshots” at religious pluralism? Conspiracy theory claims of Sharia law in the US, howls of outrage over Muslim elected officials taking their oaths of office on the Koran, and the frequently absurd shenanigans when a non-Christian (or worse, a Satanist) wants to take a turn giving the invocation at an official public meeting, would appear to indicate otherwise.
In context, this is a reference to personal petitions and confession, not corporate prayer. Jesus himself prays in public (e.g., Matt 19:13, Luke 3:31, esp. John 17) as do the apostles on numerous occasions (Paul, alone, more than 20 times) demonstrating that Matt. 6:6 is not a blanket prohibition on all praying in public.
Having said that, I am totally against public prayer at civil or sporting occasions. First of all I may not want to hear the prayer of the person praying. But more importantly the bible doesn’t tell us to demand the right to pray in from of a captive audience of unbelievers. When it happens, I weirdly find myself as one of the few not bowing, even though I am likely one of the more devout Christians in the audience.
Yes, of course. And the same is true for theft for example. But to date, no poster campaign in public places has yet been deployed to incite theft, right? So, you see, there is something new going on here.
Agreed, but any thoughts on why attacks on religion, on the idea of God, on Christianity etc. are so frequent and so vehement in places where secular humanists discuss things? I suspect that the number of secular humanists who have openly attacked various aspects of religious belief is considerably greater than the number of secular humanists who cheat at golf.
