Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[BCP1928]

But just because the church declares it to be is not a Christian core truth. Core Truths are Christ teachings. They have to have some Biblical basis. But where s that in the bible. You can't label every bad act as a Christian truth.

But your saying I am pushing them out. And how is pushing out good Christians helping people and society a good thing. You say it like its good that these good Christians are being pushed out.

How is it Christians stereotyping Christians negatively when its people looking from outside Christianity making the stereotypes.

Well thern don't stereotype all Christians by what happens in your country. But I don't think Christians wield much power in any western nation now. Sure theresd a lot of rhetoric going on but when it comes to real power I don't think Christians have much sway.

Look at all the anti Christian laws and policies that are now set in place. Like with Marriage or allowing Christianity in schools. Its all removed and its the secular rule that dictates. The church as a political power has no power.

The fact that you think that those are "anti-Christian" laws reveals your real position quite clearly.

Christians generally support the right and conservatives. That is only natural. But I don't think US politics is all about Christianity. The right is not just influenced by their beliefs. They have many genuine social and economic reasons why they may want change. At the end of the day most people vote for a variety of reasons like the economy.

If they don't have enough money to live religion is the last thing on their mind. If immigration policy is out of control and the very fabric of a free and democratic society is being threatened then its not about religion but the safety and stability of their own nation. That is what most people think and how they vote. For many practical reasons.

The fact that you stereotype any complaints from the right as religiuous only prove my point that your stereotyping Christins and Christianity. Using it as a political weapon.

Christians (Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants, that is) constitute, last I looked, about 25% of the electorate and represent a solid and unified voting bloc, which is an extremely powerful thing in electoral politics. They take strong positions on the following policies, advancing biblical arguments in support of them.

Abortion--opposed
Birth control--opposed
Toleration of LGBTs--opposed
Gun control--opposed
AGW and steps to counter it--opposed
Single-payer health care--opposed
Granting asylum to illegal aliens--opposed
Prayer and Bible study in the public schools--in favor, but only Evangelical Protestant prayer and Bible study to be allowed.

 

[BPPLEE]

The fact that you think that those are "anti-Christian" laws reveals your real position quite clearly.

Christians (Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants, that is) constitute, last I looked, about 25% of the electorate and represent a solid and unified voting bloc, which is an extremely powerful thing in electoral politics. They take strong positions on the following policies, advancing biblical arguments in support of them.

Abortion--opposed
Birth control--opposed
Toleration of LGBTs--opposed
Gun control--opposed
AGW and steps to counter it--opposed
Single-payer health care--opposed
Granting asylum to illegal aliens--opposed
Prayer and Bible study in the public schools--in favor, but only Evangelical Protestant prayer and Bible study to be allowed.

Abortion- personally opposed but don’t want it outlawed
Birth Control - 100% in favor
Toleration of LGBTQ- 100% support toleration, not celebration
AGW. What is that?
Gun control- opposed
Single payer health care- opposed
Prayer and Bible study in public schools- opposed
only student led informal voluntary prayer and really public school is no place for Bible study
If you allow it, then you have to allow a Koran study or a Satanic Bible study or whatever someone comes up with.

 

[stevevw]

The fact that you think that those are "anti-Christian" laws reveals your real position quite clearly.

No I am saying that these Christian values and beliefs were once in secular society, the public space and society removed them which is what a secular State should do. So Christianity has no power anymore to dictate secular norms.

Now the State dictates the values and beliefs on these matters. The State is now taken the role of the arbitor of what beliefs and values society should have. But that is a religion in itself because the determination of what consitutues the right ideology in how individuals, families, institutions and society as a whole should be ordered is a metaphysical belief itself. Its not based on facts or reality.

Christians (Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants, that is) constitute, last I looked, about 25% of the electorate and represent a solid and unified voting bloc, which is an extremely powerful thing in electoral politics. They take strong positions on the following policies, advancing biblical arguments in support of them.

Abortion--opposed
Birth control--opposed
Toleration of LGBTs--opposed
Gun control--opposed
AGW and steps to counter it--opposed
Single-payer health care--opposed
Granting asylum to illegal aliens--opposed
Prayer and Bible study in the public schools--in favor, but only Evangelical Protestant prayer and Bible study to be allowed.

Ok well that sounds like the many other extreme groups like Extinction rebellion, Greenpeace, BLM, ANTIFA, all the Marxist groups trying to force socialism, the Woke brigade, Cancel Culture and DEI ideologues. Society is made up of many political and ideological groups all vying for space and to control the narrative and society.

But what is interesting and a concern is that everyone has become more polarised and not just these "Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants". The Left will have their versions of extreme ideology. We already see it in operation within society and how divisive it is.

The thing is people are now demonising opposing groups because they are making it all about groups, identity. You just identified what you believe is a negative identity which makes up 25% of voters. So your demonising a quarter of all people. Thats not a good way to create a society that gets along by calling anyone who has a different and perhaps valid view at least in some ways bad or evil.

I mean most of that list you make is not necessarily an extreme position to take. Maybe completely outlawing everything is unreal but most people agree in minimizing Abortion, unnecessary abortions. Or reducing gun related deaths through some sort of gun control.

I don't think they are against the LGBTIQ+ community but rather having some unreal ideology thrust upon them . Most say that a person can identify however they want but they should not and society should not impose something on people they don't believe in or think is reality. What some Woke ideologues are doing is wanting to impose their ideology onto everyone.

But that is exacty the same thing people are accusing the (Fundamentalist Evangelicals of doing. Forcing their religion onto others.

I don't think most people are against birth control. Its more about responsible birth control to stop the rise of broken families, fatherless kids. These are nobel reasons. You act like there is no rational basis to these concerns.

I mean look at the out of control situation with immigration, refugees and asylum seekers. Due to lax policies we now have worldwide crisis on our hands where civil unreal is occurring across most western nations. Tens of thousands of people crossing borders without any controls and where radicals are coming in and bringing their chaos now undermining society.

The Scandinavian nations who had the most generous immigration polcies are now a hotbed of terrorism and gand violence. These were once the most peaceful and human societies.

What I find ironic is that you dismiss these Christian groups perse as though 25% of the people are full of rubbish when there may be some truth to the issues they highlight. Sure some go overboard but that doesn't mean these issues need addressing and that current policy or beliefs about how we should deal with this is correct.

It may be that the current beliefs and policies about open boarders, free range of abortion, the pill, gund ect is exactly what is the problem. At the very least both sides concerns should be legitimate and able to be expressed if we are to tolerate all views and beliefs.

 

[BCP1928]

No I am saying that these Christian values and beliefs were once in secular society, the public space and society removed them which is what a secular State should do. So Christianity has no power anymore to dictate secular norms.

Not that they don't want it still. That's why they want to put Trump in office whether he actually gets the votes or not.

Now the State dictates the values and beliefs on these matters. The State is now taken the role of the arbitor of what beliefs and values society should have. But that is a religion in itself because the determination of what consitutues the right ideology in how individuals, families, institutions and society as a whole should be ordered is a metaphysical belief itself. Its not based on facts or reality.

Ok well that sounds like the many other extreme groups like Extinction rebellion, Greenpeace, BLM, ANTIFA, all the Marxist groups trying to force socialism, the Woke brigade, Cancel Culture and DEI ideologues. Society is made up of many political and ideological groups all vying for space and to control the narrative and society.

But what is interesting and a concern is that everyone has become more polarised and not just these "Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants". The Left will have their versions of extreme ideology. We already see it in operation within society and how divisive it is.

The thing is people are now demonising opposing groups because they are making it all about groups, identity. You just identified what you believe is a negative identity which makes up 25% of voters. So your demonising a quarter of all people. Thats not a good way to create a society that gets along by calling anyone who has a different and perhaps valid view at least in some ways bad or evil.

I mean most of that list you make is not necessarily an extreme position to take. Maybe completely outlawing everything is unreal but most people agree in minimizing Abortion, unnecessary abortions. Or reducing gun related deaths through some sort of gun control.

I don't think they are against the LGBTIQ+ community but rather having some unreal ideology thrust upon them . Most say that a person can identify however they want but they should not and society should not impose something on people they don't believe in or think is reality. What some Woke ideologues are doing is wanting to impose their ideology onto everyone.

But that is exacty the same thing people are accusing the (Fundamentalist Evangelicals of doing. Forcing their religion onto others.

I don't think most people are against birth control. Its more about responsible birth control to stop the rise of broken families, fatherless kids. These are nobel reasons. You act like there is no rational basis to these concerns.

I mean look at the out of control situation with immigration, refugees and asylum seekers. Due to lax policies we now have worldwide crisis on our hands where civil unreal is occurring across most western nations. Tens of thousands of people crossing borders without any controls and where radicals are coming in and bringing their chaos now undermining society.

The Scandinavian nations who had the most generous immigration polcies are now a hotbed of terrorism and gand violence. These were once the most peaceful and human societies.

What I find ironic is that you dismiss these Christian groups perse as though 25% of the people are full of rubbish when there may be some truth to the issues they highlight. Sure some go overboard but that doesn't mean these issues need addressing and that current policy or beliefs about how we should deal with this is correct.

It may be that the current beliefs and policies about open boarders, free range of abortion, the pill, gund ect is exactly what is the problem. At the very least both sides concerns should be legitimate and able to be expressed if we are to tolerate all views and beliefs.

Too much misinformation to respond to in detail. Let me just say this: The laws of a secular state are not moral statements, just rules that we have agreed to follow. They may reflect the moral sentiments of those who craft them but they are not, in themselves moral statements. For example, allowing civil marriage for gays is not an assertion that gay marriage is moral, only that it is legal. So it does not challenge or undercut the Christian position that gay marriage is immoral for Christians, only that it is legal for non-Christians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not that they don't want it still. That's why they want to put Trump in office whether he actually gets the votes or not.

Too much misinformation to respond to in detail. Let me just say this: The laws of a secular state are not moral statements, just rules that we have agreed to follow. They may reflect the moral sentiments of those who craft them but they are not, in themselves moral statements. For example, allowing civil marriage for gays is not an assertion that gay marriage is moral, only that it is legal. So it does not challenge or undercut the Christian position that gay marriage is immoral for Christians, only that it is legal for non-Christians.

What you're saying would only be true if the Government---whichever government---is truly neutral where religion, and specifically Christianity, is concerned. But usually, laws are a mixture of notions that in due time show their ethical preferences. So, they can represent moral insinuations of what is expected of the populace.

Y'know, the more you write, the more I sense a strong Socialist leaning, maybe even a Marxist leaning, within your position, or something not too far from it. I'm not comfortable with that.

 

[BCP1928]

What you're saying would only be true if the Government---whichever government---is truly neutral where religion, and specifically Christianity, is concerned. But usually, laws are a mixture of notions that in due time show their ethical preferences. So, they can represent moral insinuations of what is expected of the populace.

But even so, the laws, in themselves, do not pronounce on the morality of those insinuations. For instance, a law allowing civil marriage for gays is not a statement that such marriages are moral, only that they are legal. It does not challenge the Christian position that such marriages are Immoral. The only challenge is to the notion that the Christian position on gay marriage should be imposed on the non-
Christian citizens of a secular state.

Y'know, the more you write, the more I sense a strong Socialist leaning, maybe even a Marxist leaning, within your position, or something not too far from it. I'm not comfortable with that.

No, I don't believe that socialist government should be imposed by violent revolution. I don't support socialism at all. You must mean something else.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But even so, the laws, in themselves, do not pronounce on the morality of those insinuations. For instance, a law allowing civil marriage for gays is not a statement that such marriages are moral, only that they are legal. It does not challenge the Christian position that such marriages are Immoral. The only challenge is to the notion that the Christian position on gay marriage should be imposed on the non-
Christian citizens of a secular state.

I think it's more accurate to say that with both Moral Relativism and Cultural Relativism in view, there may or may not be an analytic distinction between Law and Morality and/or Ethics. It depends on the particular Ethics and the Philosophy of Law that a person (or a society on the whole) holds.

As a simple example, a stop-sign very well DOES imply a moral imposition upon people. If we run the stop sign flagrantly, it shows that not only are we breaking a legally applied convention, but we have a disregard for other human beings and we have little or no care about the risks and possible consequences which could ensue and affect those other people.

Your example, likewise, at the very, very least implies that a law should be put into place because freedom of sexual conscience and some autonomy should be morally recognized at most levels of society and it would be wrong to flagrantly impose one's self on other's relational choices between themselves and other consenting adults.

At some point, we can bring in the gamut of theories within The Philosophy of Law and in Ethics and see where there are overlays between legal thought and morality and/or ethics.

No, I don't believe that socialist government should be imposed by violent revolution. I don't support socialism at all. You must mean something else.

That's good to hear. For the time being, then, I'll just assume you're thinking along the lines of some form of Libertarian reference.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As a simple example, a stop-sign very well DOES imply a moral imposition upon people. If we run the stop sign flagrantly, it shows that not only are we breaking a legally applied convention, but we have a disregard for other human beings and we have little or no care about the risks and possible consequences which could ensue and affect those other people.

Traffic controls are a safety issue, not a moral imposition.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Traffic controls are a safety issue, not a moral imposition.

Considering the safety of others can be a moral issue, depending upon which one of a dozen Ethical positions one may hold.

 

[BCP1928]

Considering the safety of others can be a moral issue, depending upon which one of a dozen Ethical positions one may hold.

Even so, it would be a moral issue for the persons who advocated for the law, not the state. The state itself does not have moral agency.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Even so, it would be a moral issue for the persons who advocated for the law, not the state. The state itself does not have moral agency.

And whose specific Philosophy of Law have you been reading to come to this conclusion that "states do not themselves have moral agency"?

You make it sound as if there is, and has only been, one theoretical position on this.

 

[BCP1928]

And whose specific Philosophy of Law have you been reading to come to this conclusion that "states do not themselves have moral agency"?

It's my opinion, drawn from my understanding that moral agency requires self-aware intelligence.

 

[Godcrazy]

Good old drugs, sex, and rock and roll. It hasn't killed us yet and has become a part of American culture.

As in the days of Noah. As well the technology. And especially new fallen angels technology. I think we haven't seen nothing yet. Thinking of how Noah was the only pure.. Not defiled.. Here I'm thinking especially of changing the dna. It makes sense, doesn't it. For not talk about all the ufos. Fallen. Cern. There are many things.
Well it has destroyed the society

 

[Godcrazy]

It's my opinion, drawn from my understanding that moral agency requires self-aware intelligence.

It requires an understanding about God and an understanding how you don't get fulfilled by circling around in wealth and pleasure.

 

[Godcrazy]

Yes this is interesting in light of current times and how many are moving away from God. It seems the culture at present has been growing to almost antagonism towards Gods message in mainstream society.

So it seems that going out into the world to preach the gospel is very relevant today. But it also means that it is a time frought with trials and tribulations where Christians will be called to put their faith into action and be persecuted in Christs name just as He said.

They think if it feels good it must be good. But the devil comes as an angel of light. That is what he has most success with.

 

[Paulos23]

As in the days of Noah. As well the technology. And especially new fallen angels technology. I think we haven't seen nothing yet. Thinking of how Noah was the only pure.. Not defiled.. Here I'm thinking especially of changing the dna. It makes sense, doesn't it. For not talk about all the ufos. Fallen. Cern. There are many things.
Well it has destroyed the society

No one is pure, there is no perfect age to look back on.

Now technology is changing our behavior, more so with kids than adults, but that does not mean the fall of everything.

 

[Godcrazy]

No one is pure, there is no perfect age to look back on.

Now technology is changing our behavior, more so with kids than adults, but that does not mean the fall of everything.

If you just give in to sin and temptation and think, ah, God will always.. While it's clear in the bible that if you live in it, live in the sin, making excuses, you're going nowhere. That is, if you repent. But repent means turn from sin

 

[Paulos23]

If you just give in to sin and temptation and think, ah, God will always.. While it's clear in the bible that if you live in it, live in the sin, making excuses, you're going nowhere. That is, if you repent. But repent means turn from sin

If that is your mindset, I can see what you are seeing. But that is not mine.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As in the days of Noah. As well the technology. And especially new fallen angels technology. I think we haven't seen nothing yet. Thinking of how Noah was the only pure.. Not defiled.. Here I'm thinking especially of changing the dna. It makes sense, doesn't it.

Does it?

For not talk about all the ufos. Fallen. Cern. There are many things.
Well it has destroyed the society

No, your post doesn't make sense. It is all over the place with completely unrelated things and one-word sentences.

What does CERN have to do with anything?

 

[stevevw]

They think if it feels good it must be good. But the devil comes as an angel of light. That is what he has most success with.

Yes when we take God out of the picture all we have left is self. Rather than looking outside and above ourselves we turn inward and feelings and self satisfaction become everything.

Thats why Satan tempted Christ with power and pleasure of wealth to take His eyes off God and place it at Gods feet with the things of this world.