What is the greatest moral threat to Christianity in the U.S.?

Dark Horse Forever said:

I DON't UNDERSTAND ALL OF YOU PEOPLE.

Click to expand...

Tell me about it.

redleghunter said:

Tell me about it.

Click to expand...

ALL OF YOUR ANSWERS ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

DO YOU KNOW WHY????

redleghunter said:

I don't think you are seeing this clearly. Churches like Christ are to welcome repentant sinners. Look at the Gospels. Jesus healed those seeking to be well; forgave those who asked for forgiveness. Don't worry though...a lot of Christians get this wrong too. They believe Jesus kept company with unrepentant sinners. Just not true as He came to those seeking forgiveness.

Luke 24:

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”

Repentance:

Repentance, also called penitence, is the God-granted attitude of having sorrow for personal sin and the turning away from it towards a new life.

Characteristics of true repentance
Biblical repentance consists of two mental assertions and understandings, which if genuine, always manifest themselves in two outward ways. These mental assertions also correspond to their outward manifestations. If one has a true sense of guilt (A), that will result in the outward hatred of sin (A'). If one has an understanding of God's mercy in Christ (B), that will result in a lifelong endeavor to be more like Christ (B').

A - a true sense of one's own guilt and sinfulness, B - an understanding of God's mercy in Christ, A' - results in an actual hatred of sin and turning from it to God, B' - results in a persistent endeavor after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments. True repentance is characterized by a consciousness of guilt (Psalm 51:4, 9), of pollution (Psalm 51:5, 7, 10), and of helplessness (Psalm 51:11; 109:21, 22). It sees the person in the moral condition that God has always seen them. But repentance is not just a sense of sin, but also an understanding of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance (Psalms 51:1; 130:4).

More here:

http://www.theopedia.com/repentance#note-1

Click to expand...

And your problem is the way it comes off. It appears to be uncaring and unwelcoming.

You can throw out who you want, but people don't agree what is a 'sin' these days. No matter what Bible quote you give them it doesn't change the fact that they know people that are good that have some trait that the church wants them to condemn them for. And people, mostly young people, don't want to hurt those people by turning their back on them.

So you can quote the Bible all you want, I don't care. It doesn't help your message.

redleghunter said:

You did not read your own source. Patheos makes the disclaimer that prisons do not accurately log religious preference and some do not do so at all.

Click to expand...

Since not all prisons report a particular statistic we should just ignore the data from the ones who do? Really, this is the best you can do? I'm not sure what is so scary about actually looking at the data.

KCfromNC said:

And Christians make up the vast majority of the prison population. Not sure what it proves, other than that there are a lot of Christians in this country.

Click to expand...

At best what it indicates is that the manner of immorality and iniquity that atheists are more likely to support (inappropriate contentography, fornication, abortion, homosexual relations, drunkenness, etc.) is not the type that one usually ends up in prison for (drugs stealing, killing) as the former is more common among low income population (esp. in black culture) which atheists are usually not raised in.

The moral argument using figure(s) for the the % of atheists vs. Christians in Fed. prison misleading as the only figure that matters is not the percentage of prisoners that are atheists, but the % of atheists in the US who ended up in prison as compared with those of faith. For as your cited web page reported,

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (PDF), you’ll see that self-described atheists make up 1.6% of the population. The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (PDF) puts atheists at 0.7% of the population. (If those numbers seem awfully low to you, make sure you’re not confusing atheists with the ever-rising percentage of “Nones.”).

Thus if atheists only constituted 0.7% to 1.6% of the total US pop. then it would not be surprising that they only constituted 0.2% of the Fed. prison pop.

Since approx 76% of the American population identified themselves as Christians in 2008 their % of the Fed. prison pop. would be expected to be higher, esp. since prisoners tend to "find "God" in prison, while many "Christians" are atheists in practice, but will ID with some religion.

Then we also have the claim that while only representing 10% of the population [1999], the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population.” http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

And if the debate is whether atheists profess moral laxity more than committed Christians, then the evidence clearly testifies to that being the case. And as atheists reject any sure and supreme moral document which we can hold them to, even if subject to some interpretation, but instead morality is what each atheist seems as reasonable, then this is not surprising. And combined with their profession of moral laxity, it supports the premise that atheists are less likely to be trusted.

KCfromNC said:

Since not all prisons report a particular statistic we should just ignore the data from the ones who do? Really, this is the best you can do? I'm not sure what is so scary about actually looking at the data.

Click to expand...

It's incomplete data. Akin to a jobs report omitting the underemployed.

Paulos23 said:

And your problem is the way it comes off. It appears to be uncaring and unwelcoming.

You can throw out who you want, but people don't agree what is a 'sin' these days. No matter what Bible quote you give them it doesn't change the fact that they know people that are good that have some trait that the church wants them to condemn them for. And people, mostly young people, don't want to hurt those people by turning their back on them.

So you can quote the Bible all you want, I don't care. It doesn't help your message.

Click to expand...

God is Immutable. He says so.

He also says:

Matthew 11:


28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

redleghunter said:

It's incomplete data. Akin to a jobs report omitting the underemployed.

Click to expand...

If you are uncomfortable looking at the data for whatever reason, you don't need to rationalize your decision to the rest of us.

KCfromNC said:

If you are uncomfortable looking at the data for whatever reason, you don't need to rationalize your decision to the rest of us.

Click to expand...

I looked at the data. It's incomplete and all over the map. The Patheos blog and links do not properly inform.

PeaceByJesus said:

At best what it indicates is that the manner of immorality and iniquity that atheists are more likely to support (inappropriate contentography, fornication, abortion, homosexual relations, drunkenness, etc.)

Click to expand...

Actual research shows the opposite : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...ve-inappropriate contentography/#.Vro1EeaWlps. Maybe conservative religious believers are just better liars?

The figure(s) for the the % of atheists vs. Christians in Fed. prison misleading as the only figure that matters is not the percentage of prisoners that are atheists, but the % of atheists in the US who ended up in prison as compared with those of faith.

Click to expand...

That might be interesting to some, but doesn't have much to do with the claim I was asked to support.

And if the debate is whether atheists profess moral laxity more than committed Christians, then the evidence clearly testifies to that being the case.

Click to expand...

They disagree with conservative Christian views of morality. Or at least the ones conservative Christians pretend to have when talking with each other. There seems to be some data (that I posted above) which shows they're not being honest about those claims.

And as atheists reject any sure and supreme moral document

Click to expand...

Some do, some don't.

redleghunter said:

I looked at the data. It's incomplete and all over the map. The Patheos blog and links do not properly inform.

Click to expand...

Like I said, you don't have to rationalize why you're avoiding this data to us. It's OK.

KCfromNC said:

Like I said, you don't have to rationalize why you're avoiding this data to us. It's OK.

Click to expand...

LOL, an incomplete report is just that. Incomplete. You get a "D" for at least trying.

Paulos23 said:

And your problem is the way it comes off. It appears to be uncaring and unwelcoming.

Click to expand...

If the issue is how to have the broadest appeal in an advertising campaign to increase sales of toothpaste then this would have a place, but as concerns rulers of membership then it does not.

You can throw out who you want, but people don't agree what is a 'sin' these days.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant, as some may not agree with the rules of the NFL, but that does not mean they are wrong for having and enforcing such, so matter how enraged some may be at them and or the officiating. Disputes can take place, but there must be rules and to which appeal is made, and which can result in ejection/disqualification.

No matter what Bible quote you give them it doesn't change the fact that they know people that are good that have some trait that the church wants them to condemn them for.

Click to expand...

Then the issue becomes what defines what is "good," and then the case for wrong "officiating."

And people, mostly young people, don't want to hurt those people by turning their back on them.

Click to expand...

And others do not want a church where there are loose standards for doctrine and conduct. You are always going to have those who disagree with such, but you must have rules with rewards and penalties, and if your criteria for such or enforcement is how it affects your popularity then you have the wrong "team."

Christianity did not begin as a popularity contest based on broadest appeal, and those who descend to such are betraying its Founder, foundation of absolute Truth and supremely divisive message.

So you can quote the Bible all you want, I don't care. It doesn't help your message.

Click to expand...

The key phrase is that you do not care, but since Christianity began upon Truth claims being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, then quoting the Bible does matter, unless the goal is simply gaining attendance at any cost.

The NT church began with a relative remnant of lovers of Truth, and a few committed members will accomplish more than masses of mostly spectators, and better is the wrath or respect of your enemies because you will not compromise what it right than the accolades of those you gain by compromise.

Then again, you have those who cannot have a good day unless they have driven someone to reject/get angry at them.

KCfromNC said:

And Christians make up the vast majority of the prison population. Not sure what it proves, other than that there are a lot of Christians in this country.

Click to expand...

At best what it indicates is that the manner of immorality and iniquity that atheists are more likely to support (inappropriate contentography, fornication, abortion, homosexual relations, drunkenness, etc.) is not the type that one usually ends up in prison for (drugs stealing, killing) as the former is more common among low income population (esp. in black culture) which atheists are usually not raised in.

The figure(s) for the the % of atheists vs. Christians in Fed. prison misleading as the only figure that matters is not the percentage of prisoners that are atheists, but the % of atheists in the US who ended up in prison as compared with those of faith. For as your cited web page reported,

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (PDF), you’ll see that self-described atheists make up 1.6% of the population. The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (PDF) puts atheists at 0.7% of the population. (If those numbers seem awfully low to you, make sure you’re not confusing atheists with the ever-rising percentage of “Nones.”).

Thus if atheists only constituted 0.7% to 1.6% of the total US pop. then it would not be surprising that they only constituted 0.2% of the Fed. prison pop.

Since approx 76% of the American population identified themselves as Christians in 2008 their % of the Fed. prison pop. would be expected to be higher, esp. since prisoners tend to "find "God" in prison, while many "Christians" are atheists in practice, but will ID with some religion.

Then we also have the claim that while only representing 10% of the population [1999], the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population.” http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

And if the debate is whether atheists profess moral laxity more than committed Christians, then the evidence clearly testifies to that being the case. And as atheists reject any sure and supreme moral document which we can hold them to, even if subject to some interpretation, but instead morality is what each atheist seems as reasonable, then this is not surprising. And combined with their profession of moral laxity, it supports the premise that atheists are less likely to be trusted.

KCfromNC said:

Actual research shows the opposite : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...ve-inappropriate contentography/#.Vro1EeaWlps. Maybe conservative religious believers are just better liars?.

Click to expand...

Maybe liberals are as just desperate, as the conclusions of that one study, that more conservative/religious states = more sex searches = more support of inappropriate content seems quite dubious, which some of the comments find. How they factored in differences in population, poverty rate and Internet use is not said, and population density, education level and percent of youth is absent (Internet inappropriate content subscriptions are particularly widespread in states with young populations, in the 15 to 24 age group, and Maine Vermont and New Hampshire have the oldest, and are far down in the ratings on sex searches).

And while the map is hard to read, but presuming the higher blocks represent the highest in ratings, among other issues it has Oklahoma, which according to here was the most evangelical state in 2008, far far below liberal California and New York. I would have to do more research to better analyze this.

In addition to other factors, those with more money would be more likely to procure cable and online subscriptions and not need to search for inappropriate content.

Moreover, as one who has lived in a poor, multi ethnic high population density inner city for 22 years, i can tell you that you have both the highest amounts of devout Christians as well as the most crime. One building can be having worship service and another is doing drug deals and parties. And more youth also correlates to more crime.

That might be interesting to some, but doesn't have much to do with the claim I was asked to support.

Click to expand...

It has much to do your argument, that Christians make up the vast majority of the prison population, for as said, that would be expected if they make up 76% of the US pop. anyway!

They disagree with conservative Christian views of morality. Or at least the ones conservative Christians pretend to have when talking with each other.

Click to expand...

That is so vague as to be meaningless, while survey after survey testifies to evangelicals being the most unified in basic beliefs and values.

There seems to be some data (that I posted above) which shows they're not being honest about those claims.

Click to expand...

"Seems" is the best you can do, if that, as it seems to assume Republican equates to conservative Christian, while likely a minority of Republicans are social platform ones, and even that does not necessarily mean that are Christian, nor does self-ID as one mean you are.

This is not a "no true Scotsman" appeal as we have a supreme descriptive definitive source of the title "Christian," (Acts 11:26) and if you want to argue that libertarian types are what the NT describes then lets have at it.

Some do, some don't.

Click to expand...

I have never heard of an atheist ever appealing to any sure and supreme moral document/standard to which he was held, while in contrast to faithful Christians in the Bible, atheists certainly do not have to.

I have seen atheists both oppose fornication as well as laud it, as both seem right to them.

redleghunter said:

The Affordable Healthcare Act (AHA) is a disaster right now.

Click to expand...

Understatement.
Single Payer= even bigger disaster...

PeaceByJesus said:

The key phrase is that you do not care, but since Christianity began upon Truth claims being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, then quoting the Bible does matter, unless the goal is simply gaining attendance at any cost.

The NT church began with a relative remnant of lovers of Truth, and a few committed members will accomplish more than masses of mostly spectators, and better is the wrath or respect of your enemies because you will not compromise what it right than the accolades of those you gain by compromise.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I will take evidence based theories over Truth. At the very least I have the strength to acknowledge that I am wrong based on new evidence, I have yet to see people that quote the Bible to even consider outside sources. I did at one time except the Bible, but it's testable claims failed, and the ones that are not testable don't affect how I live my life. I understand that to many they think it is Truth, but I have seen that 'truth' be used for both good and evil.

So yes, churches can dictate who is in their church. But, they are not getting many new converts in the new generation based on their views of gender, sex, attraction, etc. Which is why I don't care, people are seeing for themselves how bad churches have gotten.

redleghunter said:

You get a "D" for at least trying.

Click to expand...

You're generous today...

Paulos23 said:

Honestly, I will take evidence based theories over Truth. At the very least I have the strength to acknowledge that I am wrong based on new evidence, I have yet to see people that quote the Bible to even consider outside sources.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? We are dealing with what defines a Christian based on the descriptive source of the word, and which was the supreme transcendent standard for that faith, employing reason that based upon that then your "big tent" idea is perverse.

And that we do not consider outside sources is absurd, as such things as archaeological findings (latest: Biblical Pool Uncovered in Jerusalem) makes up a substantial part of Christian studies and apologetics.

they are not getting many new converts in the new generation based on their views of gender, sex, attraction, et

Click to expand...

If an types of churches are growing it is those who are most committed to Scripture and standards. For as concerns your liberal appeal advice, that the church should not be disfellowshiping unrepentant sinners based on what the Bible says, or at least since that can be abused, or that the study of scriptures does nothing for the new moral issues, evidence attests to the reality that while relatively conservative evangelical Christianity have grown in the last few decades the mainline liberal churches are slowly turning into dinosaurs.

And there is nothing new or lacking about going to Scripture for moral issues, as if not addressed by specific precept then they are addressed in principle. And as for Scripture failing in testable claims, i think you need to avail yourself of some apologetical research.

Now you need to provide evidence that more laxity in doctrine and discipline will reinvigorate Christian churches in the long term. That certainly is not how Christianity began, though it evidenced much more supernatural life (yet God is manifestly still doing so). And thus Biblical Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried.

In reality, the growth of NONEs in the West much parallels the growth in political independents, as well as rejection of marriage, testifying to both cynicism on one hand and and lack of commitment and to traditional values on the other, with the latter affecting the former.

PeaceByJesus said:

And as concerns your liberal appeal advice, evidence attests to the reality that while relatively conservative evangelical Christianity has grown in the last few decades the mainline liberal churches are slowly turning into dinosaurs.

Click to expand...

So what?