Anti Gay Prejudice is Slipping Among Evangelicals
It was as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. It is happening because (1.) the Bible does not condemn homosexual marriage, (2.) young people are tolerant of equality and (3.) older prejudiced members are dying off. Statistics show a steady increase in tolerance for gay people. It is not the majority yet but may well be soon.
It's fun, at least for me, to think of all the ways things used to have clear demarcations and no longer do. Race used to be easier to identify. At least there were those who thought so. Even though many people were considered to be black had white slave-holding ancestors, it was thought to be clear who was what. With the rapid growth of interracial marriage and citizens from other countries race is now on a scale with no way to measure.
Then, there is gender. People who change how they self identify themselves by gender are now out and about among us. The old saw that if you were born with more male than female parts or visa versa made that decision for you is gone forever. No matter how loud preachers shout, "You are the gender your body gave you" it is meaningless for some people. When we learn how common it has always been for people see themselves as a different gender than their bodies indicated it begins to change our thinking.
The same thing is happening to conservative brands of Christianity over the gay issue. That set of Christians over bought shares in the wrong company. Because they were emotionally put off by same sex relationships they began claiming the Bible reinforced their negative opinions about gays. It was impossible for them to foresee a majority of the public would see the issue exactly the opposite as they did. They bought a wrong idea, split away from their denominations and are sitting off by themselves while society has joined together and is moving on.
There can be no doubt anti gay thinking will eventually be gone from Christianity.
Jon, “There can be no doubt anti gay thinking will eventually be gone from Christianity.”
ReplyDeleteMust an atheist take the pulpit? People. It’s about people. All kinds of people. Focus on the rainbow. There is no pot of gold. See. There’s the message.
To critique my August 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM, “Focus on the rainbow.”, I offer this:
Delete“The humanistic and non-theistic moral vision is fundamentally sentimental, dependent only upon a broadly shared feeling that human beings, every one, possess inviolate dignity and worth. Kick out the [Christian] metaphysics and the moral vision of the West becomes fundamentally sentimental, reliant upon emotional appeals for good will. Non-theistic morality is entirely a game of feelings: Sentimental christianity.”(1)
That “every one possess(es) inviolate dignity and worth” is but the “moral residue(1)” of waning Christianity in the West begs the question; how did the Christian enterprise go bankrupt with that gem in its purse? Perhaps it was the metaphysics after all.
(1) http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2020/08/lazy-sentimental-christianity-part-3.html
Strange. I don't see this in the "experimentaltheology" link in my brand. I do see the influence of Calvin and his populist theology and generic world view. It's ALL so unnecessarily complicated.
DeleteRe; "split from their denominations"; I disagree. To the contrary; The "progressives" that decided to part from the original denominations positions are indeed the ones that split, taking the churches, church buildings, and administrations with them, leaving those that chose not to accept the changes by themselves. They indeed are the ones that did not split.
It is interesting to note that for several years before,the anticipated changes, the constitution changes of individual churches were pre-planned to become the property of the change, under the guise of "streamlining", and "unity", leaving those who wouldn't accept the changes without a building to worship in, and start over with what they had in the first place.
The saying; "I didn't leave the church, the church left me." is appropriate. "This is most certainly true".
I shall say no more.
Helper --"I didn't leave the church, the church left me."
DeleteYou have said that before and it only makes sense if most Protestantism is viewed from the narrowest of perspectives. The general and overall arch of Christianity, including what one reads in the Bible, is to change with the times. That is to follow the culture where ever it goes. That's what business and politics does. The church is both a business and a political entity.
Take racial equality, i.e. racial justice. The big Protestant denominations I'm a little familiar with, Methodists and Presbyterians, had different organizations in the South and North. During the civil rights period they merged.
Mostly, the overall arch has been "love thy neighbor" and fellow man. Then the gay issue came along. A big chunk of those the denominations said, "We hate homosexuals. That is what our denomination stands for. To h'll with that 'love thy neighbor' BS." The forward looking branch said, "No, we are staying with the long term arch, love thy neighbor. You conservatives are trying to change the church from what we know it has been."
So, it was the conservative anti gay branches who love to hate that left the denominations, not the liberals.
Jon; re. "The church is both a business and a political entity". In your uninformed eyes only. There are churches that are not involved in politics. Again you conflate out of ignorance.
DeleteYou are clearly not "familiar" with all, nor the application of "love thy neighbor", and puke out the conflated; "we hate homosexuals" like a paranoid radical like that Westboro Baptist church
Again, those that did not go along with the popular trends, and break ups (plural) are not the ones that "split". The issues you mention, and a few more you may not be aware of are a symptom, not the cause.
@ 7;10; re. "if most Protestantism is viewed from the narrowest of perspectives". Not so narrow, nor only Protestants. \
DeleteRe. "follow the culture"; Culture is one thing, faith, belief and practice is another.
re. Civil war; My brand brand did not change during, after, or since. We were not here during the time leading up to the civil war. It has remained the same. In the 70's there was a small movement to "modernize". THEY failed and THEY "SPLIT", formed their own little group, and eventually merged with another. Homosexuality and abortion wasn't even on the menu at the time. The issue was; Historical., grammatical, and contextual critical, vs. historical critical, with the current and distorted resulting symptoms,
Helper -- re: Does the faith change to follow the culture or not.
DeleteWe only have to look at the Bible. The writers portraying God decided to make the old God into God-lite. He got easier on sinners later in the Bibles. The writers said Jesus wanted true believers to be circumcised. Paul changed that. The early version of Jesus was all about the very soon end times. By the time (100 years later) the Book of John was written a new version of Jesus said it was not imminent.
So, does the faith change to fit the prevailing culture? The evidence is there.
Jon; After the death and resurrection, the old ceremonial law was satisfied. Paul didn't change it, the New Covenant did.
DeleteJon to answer your question; "So does the faith change to fit the prevailing culture?" Thanks to Historical Critical, without the context, and grammatical considerations, it would. The evidence is there.
Feel free to continue with your historical critical.
Helper-- "Feel free to continue your historical critical."
DeleteThanks, I will do that.
"After the death and resurrection, the old ceremonial law was satisfied...the New Covenant did."
The ancient and wealthy goat herders, the upper class who could write back then, should have called their Bible, "The Art of the Deal."
I suppose now is when you refuse to print.
DeleteThe ancient and wealthy goat herders is an old worn out saw, revealing you have run out of anything worth talking about. Sad really for a washed up professor out of his element.
Delete"Sad really for a washed up professor out of his element."
DeleteI can always tell when you know you have lost an argument. You stop trying to argue and make personal insults instead.
Any more argument is redundant. You don't like that either. and have refused to print follow ups. More indication of you losing the argument. "wealthy goat herders" and the like is an equally personal insult. Pot meet kettle.
Deletere. "The writers said Jesus wanted true believers circumcised." What writers ? Where written? In what context?
DeleteHelper "What writers?"
DeleteThat's the funniest thing you have written for a while. You are agreeing with atheists no one knows who wrote the Bible--that's one of the reason it's BS. Oh wait! God wrote the Bible. My bad.
As to where, have you ever heard of the Sermon on the Mount? If not you might look up Matt. 5:17. I must mention people who know more about this than I do, Bart Ehrman for example, thinks the Sermon on the Mount most likely never happened. So, if it didn't I stand corrected as anything attributed to Jesus by those writers who made up the story. If it never happened I'm correct in saying writers attributed it to the Jesus character in the Bible but I'm not claiming a Jesus ever said it.
Helper P.S. Here is the point where you usually throw in how terrible a professor I was.
Deletere. "Jesus wanted true believers circumcised;" Matt 5;17; "Not to abolish,but to fulfill". Once fulfilled, no longer required. If that's the best you can do to defend your statement, you fail. He ate with the publicans, (non kosher), The fulfillment also included dietary laws.
DeleteNow you are sounding like a Judaizing atheist.
re. professor; Probably not so bad in economics, but not so much in theology, I'm not impressed.
Jon @ 6;54; "funniest thing; no one knows etc". Yet you use the bible as an account of what you put in the mouth of Jesus". You can't have it both ways. Reject it, then use it in a poorly positioned defense. A practice you use often, destroying your credibility.
DeleteArdy 610. you really hit it old fella. surprised me, coming from you tho'. words like human dignity and equality are mere puffs of emotional/sentimental smoke. something that we all happen to agree upon at the moment. but what happens when we don't agree? emotions and sentiment are notoriously fickle (as even you must know). as to equality, I wish that you or Jon would give us some help in understanding your use of this notably ambiguous word. does it mean equality before the law? does it mean equality of outcome? does it mean equality of opportunity? does it mean "equal" distribution of wealth, talents and environment? or is it just another sentimental buzzword that social justice warriors use to deceive the masses?
ReplyDeleteUnknown August 18, 2020 at 9:11 AM, “words like human dignity and equality are mere puffs of emotional/sentimental smoke”
DeleteSometimes it is healthy to cite side by side a view contrary to ones own stated position.
Where would Catholicism be without “puffs of emotional/sentimental smoke” from the thurible or the cascade of colored sunlight from stained glass windows on the faithful in prayer, or the lure for feeling of the inviolate dignity and worth of all humankind. My point is that the latter principle, less the thurible, stained glass windows, and the catechism, is as valuable in a humanistic and non-theistic moral vision as in any denomination of the Christian faith. In fact perhaps more so given in many cases Christianity has squandered its intent with self-righteous, holier than thou, discrimination and exclusion.
I can’t speak for Jon but I agree that equality is a slippery concept. When I think of equality, identity comes to mind. Certainly no two people are identical, not even “identical” twins. Similar in some ways but not in all ways. A two dollar bill is equivalent to two ones but not identical. An “a” here and an “a” over here are equivalent not identical. I suppose that strikes many as a bit strange.
Perhaps we should be talking about fairness. Truth be told most people would say circumstances are fair when they have the advantage. The scale of Lady Justice only looks balanced when viewed from one perspective. That makes it a sentimental buzzword in effigy. The pulpit is yours. ;-)
you sound quite a bit like Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic. justice is what the strong say it is. that, however was not my point: your humanism, ultimately, is without foundation, a kind of free floating sentiment that rests on nothing expect perhaps, public opinion du jour. you have rejected God as the foundation. In addition you seem to have rejected the classical view of ethics. so, in all honesty, where does that leave you?
ReplyDeleteUnknown August 19, 2020 at 8:49 AM. “you have rejected God as the foundation”
DeleteWe’re far adrift from Jon’s topic of waning prejudice against gay people by some evangelicals. Maybe we can take one more pass.
Is your God the sole source of your emotion, feeling, passion, or whatever you mean by sentiment? Emotion or feeling is physical in its origin, is it not? Do you feel with God or for God? Where then is Unknown? Unknown?
Ardy: as I recall you are the one who introduced this topic. that aside, what is the basis, the foundation of your moral code, your ethical system? a straight forward, coherent answer would be most welcome. BTW, I am not unknown by choice. our system here in the old folks home will not let use any other moniker. I suppose that I change if I had the time and could tolerate the computer gobbledygook. but why bother.
ReplyDeleteUnknown--I'll jump in here for fun. I've discussed this with several times before. "..what is the basis, the foundation of your moral code, your ethical system?"
ReplyDeleteYou are making the assumption that a person with a "moral code" or an "ethical system" always has better morals and ethics than one who has neither. I don't understand why you make such an assumption. A person with a bad moral code or bad ethical system may well be far worse morally and ethically than one with neither.
once again you totally miss the point. I give up.
ReplyDeleteUnknown -- "one again you totally miss the point. I give up."
DeleteI think I understand your point. It is that without some "system" of ethics and morals people just make up their own and only bad can come of it.
What you dance over as if it isn't there is my point. That is, there is a point in competition with yours. A system that attempts to provide morals and ethics for a society may be very flawed. Random choices by many people eventually arriving at some degree of consensus may be on a higher plane than the only dictated by some "higher source." When the "higher source" is evil, such as could be said about the OT God, the results will be worse than what a society arrives at without any higher source.
I didn't say "higher source". I said foundation, something solid on which to build an ethical system. maybe, however. there is no such thing: all ethical systems are free floating, made up. and there are folks who take that view: perhaps you, in effect, are one of them. anyway, your consensus ethic sounds like ethics by majority opinion. as I said, a weak reed to lean on.
ReplyDeleteUnknown "..your consensus ethic sounds like ethics by majority opinion. as I said, a weak reed to lean on."
ReplyDeleteI concede public opinion is not always a great foundation. But, there is no reason to conclude it has a worse record, or a better record, than whatever "foundation" there is available. If our laws which came about through a long process of elections are a record of "public opinion" they have proven to be a reasonably good moral compus.