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

stevevw said:

[snips]

Well obviously the war had a lot to do with it. I think attendence fluctuated sometimes declining and then growing. It seems around 80% of people attended church in the early to mid 17th century. This may have fluctuated after this but still there was high attendence often by mothers presenting the family.

It seems late 19th century was when things began to change with people questioning fundementalism and some of the religious laws and rules were being challenged. This makes sense because it was a time of industrialisation, of science and progression.

But still it seems attendences declined and then grew again even early 20th century with new denominations, the American African Church growth for example. So the 50's and 60s was another peak and then attendences really began to decline with the cultural revolutions. Thats also when many religious laws were challenged such as abortion and divorce laws.

Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html

American religious life shared fully in this sense of growth and rapid change. Protestantism continued to hold a central, although unofficial, place in the nation’s life. Formal membership in churches and other local religious organizations continued along the upwardarching path set during the early nineteenth century, reaching the highest levels yet known in the history of the nation.

1878-1899: Religion: Overview | Encyclopedia.com

1878-1899: Religion: Overview New Outlooks. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century industrialization and urbanization profoundly affected the manner in which Americans viewed their society. Great cities arose and industrialization proceeded so quickly that within two generations the...

www.encyclopedia.com

Click to expand...

I'm glad that you finally understand that Christian participation and religiosity isn't some high level that was sustained for centuries and than began declining 60 years ago. It goes up. It goes down. Such is the way of social phenomena. As a proportion of self-identified Christians, I have no doubt participation will go back up at some time in the future, but given the general decline of Christianity and religion in the West, I doubt Christian participation as a part of the whole population will ever be this high again.

stevevw said:

Really, no sex before marriage, anti gay and abortion laws, Sunday Blue laws, adultery ect.

You were trying to make out that these squabbling denominations were contradictory to Christianity and I am saying thats a fallacy because they were all Christians squabbling over fringe aspects and not the core truths.

[bunch more snips]

I think it all comes down to how marriage is valued. Sure basd marriages should either be fixed or ended. But its like a self feeding vicious cycle where marriage has been devalued so it creates bad marriages which need to end.

But marriage has definitely changed and is less valuable, less about the institution itself as being something held above feelings and individual fullfillment. But I think this is a general reflection of the devaluing of sacrifice in society where people are not as committed and value long term value in place of short term success and value.

Click to expand...

Part of my motivation form mentioning some (often small) Christian sects was to demonstrate that there isn't a unified view on sex/marriage inside of Christianity. (And I mean official doctrines, not just in the pews.) If the variation on marriage ranges from sex only inside marriage for procreation, to free love among consenting adult members of the church (Oneida), to polygamy (Mormans), to no sex at all for any member (Shakers) then there really isn't a unified core position on marriage from Christianity. (There are majority positions amongst Christians, to be clear.)

I also don't get the "devalued marriage" argument. Marriage is an individual choice to enter into a familial contract with another person (or persons, if you are into that sort of thing). The choice of two individuals to *not* enter into that contract, but live largely as if they had doesn't "devalue" those who have entered into the contract, nor does the choice of a pair to end their contract.

stevevw said:

Are these actual Christian denominations arguing among themselves or is this another religion.

Click to expand...

It was Christians who brought the lawsuit.

stevevw said:

Because if its Christian denominations then the easy solution is the Lords Prayer which Parliament uses. Its a universal Christian prayer and is actually the prayer Christ said to pray.

Click to expand...

Which version?

stevevw said:

The Christian pray is probably going to come up more than any other religion so of course its going to dominate. But for public schools its hard to be all inclusive because then different religions which actually coinflict with each other or conflict with western values then has to be promoted as well.

So I guess thats why Its probably best not to promote any religion and just allow religion as optional with a seperate space for those who want to pray and practice their religion.

But its in the public square is where the problems start as people have a right to express their faith. Naturally Christianity is going to be the most expressed belief as we do have a connection and Christian history.

What I find hard to understand is that under freedom of belief we have to allow all religions even those like Isalm who promote anti western ideology. Thats why I think inclusiveness and toleration for all beliefs and political positions is a contradiction of democracy which actually undermines a free society.

Who are these people you keep referring to. You keep mentioning these American examples and Australian politics is not like this. Or at least not that extreme. I am not even sure what your point is. Your obviously assuming that I belong to some particular political party.

But are you saying that theres a move to stop or ban Christians expressing their faith in the public square.

Siding against what lol. What are you saying I am pushing because whatever it is your attributing something that I am not. But whatever it is it seems to bug you and just about every reply is an attack on this strawmnan you have created. It seems more personal than what actually is.

Click to expand...

Then why do you quote some of the most vicious right-wing Christian polemicists to support your points?

stevevw said:

Once again what is my side. I stand for truth, facts, and reality regardless of religious belief. Its the only way we can know whats going on lol. What have I actually pushed. Lets see democracy, Rule of Law, Freedoms like religion, conscience and political views, Human Rights, human dignity and worth beyond human determinations, the value of family and santity of marriage.

How is this controversial.

Click to expand...

Because you reserve for yourself the right to define those terms for the rest of us. You claim that right based on revisionist history

stevevw said:

I think this may happen more and this will really test peoples faith and this is when Christ shines. Though the bible does say the world will hate you because of faiyj in Christ.

Click to expand...

Jesus said, "They will hate you because of me." Some wise guy added, "Just make sure that they don't hate me because of you." That's good advice.

OK, let's talk about Sunday's and blue laws...

stevevw said:

It was more than that. For society to even have such laws influencing even secular society showed the central role Christian values played. At one point there were laws to go to church in some communities but it was a serious matter.

Click to expand...

It shows that there are enough Christians to get some fanatics elected. Others go along because they don't want to be labeled as "bad Christians" or supporting "sin" or whatever claims that get made to force the issue. In other cases it is because these are small places (like that town near us, filled with fanatical Calvanists) that are mostly ethnically or religiously homogeneous.

stevevw said:

Then as society commercialised it came into conflict thus Blue laws.

Click to expand...

Society was always commercialized. The first English colony in the future US was a commercial colony planted to make money for the investors. (It was a money pit, but that's beside the point.)

stevevw said:

Then Blue laws became a backdoor for church being optional.

Click to expand...

Hardly. Blue laws were created to keep alternatives to church from competing with it. Church was *always* optional (outside of certain Christian theocratic dictatorships.) In economics, they'd be called "protectionist".

stevevw said:

Then Blues were phased out. So it was originally rooted in the importaance church played in society.
Of course and this is how it changes. People begin to buck the system and then it becomes wide spread and changes.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

But primarily this was a battle between the church having hold over peoples morals and the progression of modern secular society and of course secular society is going to win. Now Sunday is just like any other day.

Click to expand...

Sunday *is* just like any other day. (Or rather, being part of the weekend, it is no different than Saturday.)

stevevw said:

But it wasn't just about church but a day of rest, of being with the family and loved ones and sharing as a community.

Click to expand...

I've spent many a sunday with my family and the absolute least interesting and enjoyable part of it was church.

Hans Blaster said:

I've spent many a sunday with my family and the absolute least interesting and enjoyable part of it was church.

Click to expand...

And you Catholics didn't even have "coffee hour" to put up with afterwards.

Though now that I think back on it, "coffee hour" wasn't a complete downer when I was younger. It was sometimes an opportunity to chat up young women who didn't happen to go to the same high school as I did.

stevevw said:

I am interested in this as I was speaking to some friends the other day about how especially in the media, Hollywood, Music and entertainment there seems to be this pagan or even Satanic ritualistism going on. Things like wearing these head dresses with goat horns and other pagan symbols. Its alwats very provocative and sexual as well. Almost a celebration of our animalistic side.

I think I know what is happening. Just loike in the days when people defied God they turned to nature, to animals and nature itself like Stone idols. Now that modern society is rejecting God this same belief is coming back. It may seem natural for people to worship nature as god. But primarily when this happens its not really about gods in nature but the self as god.

Also in those times people were made gods when theres no transcendent God. As self is god desires and feelings and self experience becomes the god. Therefore pleasure and all the good feelings are moral and the aweful feeling ones are sin.

So are we seeing a repeat of the down fall of society like Sodom and Gormorrah or like with how Empires have fallen where sexxual immorality and pleasure and where the created is worshipped and not the Creator.

Click to expand...

It is my opinion that we are passed the point of Sodom and Gomorrah. The signs of the Lord's coming are apparent.

Whyayeman said:

View attachment 344668
How uneasy the English mother would feel to see her daughter so unfamiliarly treated and still more to note the obliging manner in which the freedom is returned by the females. James Gilray 1810

Click to expand...

Just a flash of thought. There seems to be a dance for the community internationally. Obvious & as simple as could be in villages, in the bush, even to show a community spirit to the tourists. A Circular fun dance where, possible little if no close contact is involved. What do you think??

stevevw said:

OK how do you mean. What are the signs.

Click to expand...

They are sprinkled throughout the scriptures, but the main references are in Matthew 24, Revelation 6-11; 13 and Daniel 7.

Hans Blaster said:

I'm glad that you finally understand that Christian participation and religiosity isn't some high level that was sustained for centuries and than began declining 60 years ago. It goes up. It goes down. Such is the way of social phenomena. As a proportion of self-identified Christians, I have no doubt participation will go back up at some time in the future, but given the general decline of Christianity and religion in the West, I doubt Christian participation as a part of the whole population will ever be this high again.

Part of my motivation form mentioning some (often small) Christian sects was to demonstrate that there isn't a unified view on sex/marriage inside of Christianity. (And I mean official doctrines, not just in the pews.) If the variation on marriage ranges from sex only inside marriage for procreation, to free love among consenting adult members of the church (Oneida), to polygamy (Mormans), to no sex at all for any member (Shakers) then there really isn't a unified core position on marriage from Christianity. (There are majority positions amongst Christians, to be clear.)

I also don't get the "devalued marriage" argument. Marriage is an individual choice to enter into a familial contract with another person (or persons, if you are into that sort of thing). The choice of two individuals to *not* enter into that contract, but live largely as if they had doesn't "devalue" those who have entered into the contract, nor does the choice of a pair to end their contract.

Click to expand...

I was just reading your conversation and I just wanted to say - a total sidebar by the way - thank you for recognizing that the "Mormans" (its actually "Mormons" but they prefer to be called Latter-day Saints) are Christian.

This site does not recognize them as such, and it has been frustrating being unable to comment on the "Christian Only" forums.

The early LDS Church did practice polygamy - but it was only for a select few men and women.

They believe that the default in marriage is a man to have only the one wife - but there have been times when God has commanded that His faithful take on more than one when He wants them to "raise up seed" unto Him.

There are examples of this found in the Old Testament - particularly within the Law of Moses - when a man might be commanded to marry his brother's widow (even if he is already married) - and only if his brother had died before having any children by her.

God commanded this in order for the man to "raise up seed" unto his dead brother.

Anyways - thank you for the shout out and the acknowledgement - Latter-day Saints are Restorationist Christians.

Zaha Torte said:

I was just reading your conversation and I just wanted to say - a total sidebar by the way - thank you for recognizing that the "Mormans" (its actually "Mormons" but they prefer to be called Latter-day Saints) are Christian.

This site does not recognize them as such, and it has been frustrating being unable to comment on the "Christian Only" forums.

The early LDS Church did practice polygamy - but it was only for a select few men and women.

They believe that the default in marriage is a man to have only the one wife - but there have been times when God has commanded that His faithful take on more than one when He wants them to "raise up seed" unto Him.

There are examples of this found in the Old Testament - particularly within the Law of Moses - when a man might be commanded to marry his brother's widow (even if he is already married) - and only if his brother had died before having any children by her.

God commanded this in order for the man to "raise up seed" unto his dead brother.

Anyways - thank you for the shout out and the acknowledgement - Latter-day Saints are Restorationist Christians.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Ok I can understand the varying degrees of support for such a law. But this misses the point. Initially as the vast majority of society was Christian Sunday worship was a big deal even if some skipped it. Blue laws were a reminant of the fact that society made a big deal about Sunday worship.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's just because I don't remember the golden age you look back to, but society never made a "big deal" about Sunday worship. Church was something many people did and most people didn't go to work then. (Though, in my area there were people who worked every day.)

stevevw said:

It wasn't originally made a law because some radical minority forced the law. It was a popular consensus and a social and moral norm for society. It took some time for those laws to die out and some have tried to keep pushing them. But as Blue laws have deminished secular social norms have taken its place and such laws are now seen as unfair and pushing an ideology.

Click to expand...

Don't be so sure about that. The recent spate of book banning laws and anti-drag ordinances that have sprung up recently is various places show how easy it is for something beyond the norm to be enacted when the momentary political fever strikes.

stevevw said:

But that doesn't change the fact of where we came from as a society where these Christian values and social norms predominated our lives and were gradually overtaken by a new ideology, a more worldly ideology compared to our past.

Ok regardless of the varying importance Sunday was respected more in the public square due to Christian influence. This has gradually died off where today its not regarded as important.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is any point to this. These claims are all just vague notions without quantitative measure.

stevevw said:

Yes thats been the gradual change. Gradually Blue laws were shortened and then completely removed and after some time Sunday has blended into just another day of the week. Though many people still see it as a day of rest except now its from the work week rather than out of any respect for God.

Click to expand...

Sunday was always sacred. It is when the NFL played, though that has been diluted by Monday Night, Thursday Night, and even saturday football. Sigh.

stevevw said:

But even that is changing as life becomes more full on. People having to work weekends to make ends meet where life is more 24/7.

Click to expand...

Working more to make ends meet has nothing to do with any decline in Christianity.

stevevw said:

Same for me. That and going to grandma's lol as we had to be good boys and my brothers and I were little rascals. That changed when I got older and got involved with the Salvos. I have fond memories of the good old gospel songs sang to contemporary tunes, kind of pretty hip for back then lol.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what "Salvos" are, but rewriting current tunes to be gospel songs sounds awful. (If you want good gospel songs, they exist. Don't ruin perfectly good pop music. Ugh.)

stevevw said:

But it was also a time to share and be strengthened with so many positive people around. The difference was I was now a part of the fellowship rather than an outsider and there is power in that fellowship as far as positive influences on your life. I a world of pain and suffering and lacking meaning it was sure a beacon in the night.

Click to expand...

Fellowship was irrelevant.

Zaha Torte said:

I was just reading your conversation and I just wanted to say - a total sidebar by the way - thank you for recognizing that the "Mormans" (its actually "Mormons" but they prefer to be called Latter-day Saints) are Christian.

Click to expand...

I do know this. It was just a typo.

Zaha Torte said:

This site does not recognize them as such, and it has been frustrating being unable to comment on the "Christian Only" forums.

Click to expand...

CF does have a "strict trinitarian" interpretation of Christianity. I realized in retrospect that I didn't really accept the trinity. Trying to keep it in my head was crossing my eyes -- the moment I stopped concentrating on it my internal position reverted to a father-son relation.

Zaha Torte said:

The early LDS Church did practice polygamy - but it was only for a select few men and women.

They believe that the default in marriage is a man to have only the one wife - but there have been times when God has commanded that His faithful take on more than one when He wants them to "raise up seed" unto Him.

There are examples of this found in the Old Testament - particularly within the Law of Moses - when a man might be commanded to marry his brother's widow (even if he is already married) - and only if his brother had died before having any children by her.

God commanded this in order for the man to "raise up seed" unto his dead brother.

Anyways - thank you for the shout out and the acknowledgement - Latter-day Saints are Restorationist Christians.

Click to expand...

I don't know what a restorationist Christianity is as I know little of protestantism's variety.

2PhiloVoid said:

Click to expand...

I don't understand your emotive response.

Zaha Torte said:

I don't understand your emotive response.

Click to expand...

That's ok. I was just emoting over the assertion that Mormons are Christian....too. No, they're not.

Hans Blaster said:

I do know this. It was just a typo.

CF does have a "strict trinitarian" interpretation of Christianity. I realized in retrospect that I didn't really accept the trinity. Trying to keep it in my head was crossing my eyes -- the moment I stopped concentrating on it my internal position reverted to a father-son relation.

I don't know what a restorationist Christianity is as I know little of protestantism's variety.

Click to expand...

Try harder to understand these things, Hans. It's the least you can do in return for insisting that Christians try harder to understand science (and reality).

Hans Blaster said:

Hans Blaster said:

I do know this. It was just a typo.

CF does have a "strict trinitarian" interpretation of Christianity. I realized in retrospect that I didn't really accept the trinity. Trying to keep it in my head was crossing my eyes -- the moment I stopped concentrating on it my internal position reverted to a father-son relation.

I don't know what a restorationist Christianity is as I know little of protestantism's variety.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches and believes that God's Priesthood Authority that the Lord Jesus Christ had given to His Apostles was taken from the Earth after their rejection and subsequent deaths.

This is when the world entered into what they call the "Great Apostasy" - the "famine" mentioned by Amos and the "falling away" mentioned by Paul - when men were being "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine" because there were no authorized servants of God upon the Earth to lead them.

This is why they believe that God's Priesthood Authority - as well as "many plain and precious truths" which had been lost due to the corruption of Man - needed to be Restored to the Earth.

This was done by both the Father and the Son when They appeared to the boy Joseph Smith Jr in response to his prayer about which Christian sect he should join.

He claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ instructed him to join none of them for "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight" and that "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

This is why the Latter-day Saints (LDS) refer to themselves as Restorationist Christians - as opposed to any type of Protestant - because they believe they have a direct line to the Lord Jesus Christ through His personal ministrations in these latter-days - and He has Restored His Gospel and His authority to the Earth.

The LDS Church does not adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity (they believe that that was proven incorrect the moment both the Father and the Son appeared to the boy prophet - which they call his First Vision - as well as the fact that the scriptures do not teach it) - and they also hold to a Father-Son relationship.

They believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one Eternal God - although they are all separate and distinct individual Beings.

This idea can be confusing at first - but they also believe and teach that the term "God" can and has been used to describe other beings - such as angels, various men and even false deities in the scriptures - and determined that it is a title for a position of authority more than a name.

Therefore - even though the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct individual Beings - they hold the same office, nature, purpose and spirit - they are perfect.

Just like how a family may have multiple members in it - all are individuals, but they share the same name and similar characteristics - yet they are still only the one family.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all the same "God" (family) and the ultimate desire of the Lord Jesus Christ is for all of Mankind to become "one" with the Father - just as He is one with the Father.

Meaning - He wants us all to partake of His goodness - to have faith in Him - rely on Him - submit our wills to the Father like He did - so that we all can become more like the Father - perfect and glorious - thus becoming "one" with Him.

I know these explanations were unsolicited - and I apologize for the length - but if you ever have any questions about the LDS doctrine or history - hit me up.

God bless.

2PhiloVoid said:

That's ok. I was just emoting over the assertion that Mormons are Christian....too. No, they're not.

Click to expand...

Why do you believe that?