What are signs that a church is becoming secular?

[The Rogue Tomato]

God never told us to use radiometric dating to establish truth. Radiometric dating is not infallible and we don't know all the variables that affect decay rate. Who knows. We have a small sample size. Its the variable that always gets us....

There are lots of problems with radiometric dating.  I used to argue about it on some other Christian forum.  I forget now the name of the method they argued was infallible, but there were both logical and empirical data contradictions even with that model. 

We still don't have a clue how galaxies are formed or how they hold together and have to make up fairy stories (dark matter, dark energy) to explain it.  We view galaxies 13.5 billion light years away.  That's near the estimated age of the universe, so what we're viewing are very young galaxies.  And they magically look just like the really "old" galaxies nearby. 

The point is, science does great at measuring and observing some things NOW (not everything, like I said, it can't explain how galaxies really work).  But it's REALLY crappy at explaining what happened when nobody was around to observe it. 

 

[Izdaari]

And you believe that's historical narrative, instead of belonging to the creation myth genre? I think that's the core of our difference. Note that I'm using "myth" in the technical literary sense. It doesn't mean untrue. Cf. Lewis, Tolkien and MacDonald on "True Myth".

Whether a myth or historical narrative, words have meaning. In Genesis 1, "earth" means "earth," "animals" means "animals," so why must "first day" be anything other than a literal day (even if this was a myth)?

Note that Moses, the same writer of Genesis notes, once again, the days of Creation and uses the seventh day (Sabbath) in the context of a literal day.

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " (Ex 20:11).

You are free to show us any other example where "first day...." means anything other than a normal day. If you have an example from a myth, that will be fine.

I'm not worried about the exact meaning of the word "day". If one wishes to maintain that Genesis 1 is literally true, and still affirm Old Earth Creation, it would matter. But if. as I contend, Genesis 1 is part of the creation myth genre, then it was never intended to be taken as literally true, but instead true allegorically or spiritually but not factually,  then the exact meaning of "day" is immaterial.

 

[FSSL]

... then ALL of the animals, plants, sun, moon... and everything described in Genesis 1 should likewise not be taken as literally true?

Even in allegories, literal objects exist. Allegories require familiarities to make sense. Ala Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. A day in the life of the pilgrim is still one, literal day.

nonCreationist Hebrew Lexicons are all consistent regarding the meaning of the word "day." It is a literal, normal day.

The standard liberal lexicon HALOT: "day of 24 hours"

NIDOT: daylight, day (24 hours)

The idea of a day not being 24 hours does not come from a study of Genesis 1. It comes from assumptions that "it cannot possibly be 24 hours."

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

And you believe that's historical narrative, instead of belonging to the creation myth genre? I think that's the core of our difference. Note that I'm using "myth" in the technical literary sense. It doesn't mean untrue. Cf. Lewis, Tolkien and MacDonald on "True Myth".

Whether a myth or historical narrative, words have meaning. In Genesis 1, "earth" means "earth," "animals" means "animals," so why must "first day" be anything other than a literal day (even if this was a myth)?

Note that Moses, the same writer of Genesis notes, once again, the days of Creation and uses the seventh day (Sabbath) in the context of a literal day.

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " (Ex 20:11).

You are free to show us any other example where "first day...." means anything other than a normal day. If you have an example from a myth, that will be fine.

I'm not worried about the exact meaning of the word "day". If one wishes to maintain that Genesis 1 is literally true, and still affirm Old Earth Creation, it would matter. But if. as I contend, Genesis 1 is part of the creation myth genre, then it was never intended to be taken as literally true, but instead true allegorically or spiritually but not factually,  then the exact meaning of "day" is immaterial.

If "day" in Genesis 1 can only mean a 24 hour day, then Daniel's 70 weeks must have meant 70 literal weeks of 24 hour days.  Is the "Day of the Lord" going to occur in one 24 hour day? 

Just to repeat:  I have no problem with the possibility that it was 7 literal 24 hour days. (Although they didn't measure days in 24 hours then, did they?)  But that description of creation could also simply have been inspired (by God) to set the foundation for a 7 day week with 1 Sabbath day of rest.  Or there may be some other view. 

IMO, whether or not it was 7 literal days doesn't change what the Bible is about.  Whether or not God created the heavens and the earth would change what the Bible is about.  Whether or not God created Adam would change what the Bible is about.  But 24 hour days?  No.

 

[FSSL]

They measured days the same way we do... From sun up to sun up. It has always been a 24 hour cycle.

 

[Izdaari]

Days in Genesis might or might not be 24 hours. I don't care.
Whether they are or not makes no difference to my argument.

 

[FSSL]

It has been a fun discussion anyways.

 

[aleshanee]

It has been a fun discussion anyways.

Okay. Lets move onto #8. Approving of homosexuality.

Why do Christian's insist that homosexuals are born that way? Where is the proof?

that;s not the question we should ask ....... .... what we should be asking is why are some christians following the secular world ... singling out people born with a greater inclination towards that particular sin and making them feel they have no choice but to give in to it and make it their lifestyle?

i asked this question before and it basically got ignored...... if a child with confused sex drives and same sex attractions is automatically gay - based solely on their inner drive........ even if they resist that temptation because they know it;s wrong.... ....... then why is a child who wishes he could steal a candy bar but refuses to do it - because he also knows it is wrong - not called a thief anyway.... based solely on his inner drive?.......

but that question was never answered.... instead the conversation continued down the same path it always does....... taken over by people who say they never faced that temptation and argued against those who admit they did but decided to justify it ...... and that argument .... like so many others here...... gotten beaten into the ground like the same dried bones of the same dead horse.......

do you really think trying to drive another horse down the same old road again will get him into the right pasture this time?...... ....... you would think by now people would see that road don;t go there..... but you can try........ i think all you end up doing is wearing it down and beating it to death again............

 

[aleshanee]

I wonder if anyone has ever honestly changed their way of thinking from a thread. Besides the world assuming Christianity is just another arena to fight and prove power in.

now that;s a good question..........  8)

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

i asked this question before and it basically got ignored...... if a child with confused sex drives and same sex attractions is automatically gay - based solely on their inner drive........ even if they resist that temptation because they know it;s wrong.... ....... then why is a child who wishes he could steal a candy bar but refuses to do it - because he also knows it is wrong - not called a thief anyway.... based solely on his inner drive?.......

Yes, exactly. 

I have homosexual friends, and they're great friends, and I get along with them as well as some of my straight friends.  So I'm not saying this to put down gays.  But I'll believe homosexuality is genetic when they identify the "gay" gene.  It's probably located right next to the "lisp" gene, for men, and the bleed-over effect of the genetic abnormality may explain the connection. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Christianity has been secular for a LONG time.

I recommend reading this book:

 

[aleshanee]

i asked this question before and it basically got ignored...... if a child with confused sex drives and same sex attractions is automatically gay - based solely on their inner drive........ even if they resist that temptation because they know it;s wrong.... ....... then why is a child who wishes he could steal a candy bar but refuses to do it - because he also knows it is wrong - not called a thief anyway.... based solely on his inner drive?.......

Yes, exactly. 

I have homosexual friends, and they're great friends, and I get along with them as well as some of my straight friends.  So I'm not saying this to put down gays.  But I'll believe homosexuality is genetic when they identify the "gay" gene.  It's probably located right next to the "lisp" gene, for men, and the bleed-over effect of the genetic abnormality may explain the connection.

it;s genetic in the same way the inclination to sin is genetic....... no different in that regard than any other temptation to sin....... .... people in our generations have a harder time dealing with it for 2 reasons........ one is because the church has singled it out and applied the word abomination to people who merely have the temptation towards it.... whether they have successfully turned that temptation over to God and resisted it or not......

and secondly the world has tried to teach that it;s a genetic trait a person is born with and can never escape..... thus wrongfully... and even insidiously...applying the label of "gay" to adolescents who are not only prone to confusion about sexual matters but also very easily influenced........ ... and then the kids thus identified or feeling the guilt trip from having a temptation...however fleeting it might be... of something the church calls abomination get swatted back and forth across the court by the opposing sides like a tennis ball ...... ... 

 

[FSSL]

I am in agreement with Tomato. Unless there is a scientific genetic code, then the claim to genetics is false.

Our sin is not genetic. We are sinners because sin's penalties have been transferred to us, not through blood or DNA, but through our relationship to Adam.

Babies are born with XX and XY chromosomes.

Unfortunately, personality traits have been mislabeled by psychology. Those with what we call "effeminate" traits are treated by society as being actually effeminate, creating the confusion.

 

[aleshanee]

I am in agreement with Tomato. Unless there is a scientific genetic code, then the claim to genetics is false.

Our sin is not genetic. We are sinners because sin's penalties have been transferred to us, not through blood or DNA, but through our relationship to Adam.

Babies are born with XX and XY chromosomes.

Unfortunately, personality traits have been mislabeled by psychology. Those with what we call "effeminate" traits are treated by society as being actually effeminate, creating the confusion.

i was agreeing with tomato too....... i don;t believe it;s genetic either..... any more so than our inclination to sin would be....... ...... but with regards to psychology mislabeling personality traits..... that all started with the church..... and especially with regards to this particular problem...... .... insecure men who need something they can look down on... and believe they are better than... in order to feel good about themselves... have looked at men they thought had "effeminate" traits and made fun of them for centuries.....  whether those guys had any homosexual tendencies or temptations or not....... ....

and because they didn;t want to appear weak... members of the church...rather than defend those other men and teach the truth...... joined in and went along with it..... .... thus beginning the practice of throwing it;s own children to the wolves..... which continues to this very day........ ........ and this all started long before the science of psychology was even developed..............

 

[Izdaari]

I wonder if anyone has ever honestly changed their way of thinking from a thread. Besides the world assuming Christianity is just another arena to fight and prove power in.

I've changed my mind on a good many issues from discussions on internet forums, but never just from one thread. Rather, accumulated discussions over a period of years can gradually erode an old opinion or ideology, like running water over stone.

 

[Izdaari]

A few questions raised by the discussion on #8 so far:

1) Born that way or not? I suppose that's a matter for bio scientists. Anything beyond opinionated speculation is beyond my competence on the matter, and probably yours too. I don't think we have any geneticists in the group. Maybe partly genetic, maybe various factors while growing up. I'm not sure how much is nature vs. nurture. But I do know it has happened with identical twins that one grew up straight, and the other grew up gay. Their genes were at least almost identical, and presumably so were their upbringings.

I also know that gays are mostly not yielding to a temptation that non-gays don't feel. Many of them are simply not able to be hetero. They either cannot feel an attraction to, or cannot perform with the opposite sex. They could be celibate of course, if they so choose and are able, but aside from just no sex, that also means a lonely single  life.

2. Whether born that way or not, it's also important to Christians whether it's sinful or not. I don't think it is, but I don't know if that's a discussion we can actually have here. I will not participate in a debate that's more of a verbal food fight.

3) Why do people just focus on the men? Women can be homosexual too ya know. My gay friends include plenty of both.

 

[Izdaari]

A few questions raised by the discussion on #8 so far:

1) Born that way or not? I suppose that's a matter for bio scientists. Anything beyond opinionated speculation is beyond my competence on the matter, and probably yours too. I don't think we have any geneticists in the group. Maybe partly genetic, maybe various factors while growing up. I'm not sure how much is nature vs. nurture. But I do know it has happened with identical twins that one grew up straight, and the other grew up gay. Their genes were at least almost identical, and presumably so were their upbringings.

I also know that gays are mostly not yielding to a temptation that non-gays don't feel. Many of them are simply not able to be hetero. They either cannot feel an attraction to, or cannot perform with the opposite sex. They could be celibate of course, if they so choose and are able, but aside from just no sex, that also means a lonely single  life.

2. Whether born that way or not, it's also important to Christians whether it's sinful or not. I don't think it is, but I don't know if that's a discussion we can actually have here. I will not participate in a debate that's more of a verbal food fight.

3) Why do people just focus on the men? Women can be homosexual too ya know. My gay friends include plenty of both.

How do you fit Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, & Romans 1:26-28 into your view?

I can answer all those, but do you really want me to? I really need an answer to my question #2 from several people before I'm willing to proceed with opening that giant can o' worms.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I wonder if anyone has ever honestly changed their way of thinking from a thread. Besides the world assuming Christianity is just another arena to fight and prove power in.

I've changed my mind on a good many issues from discussions on internet forums, but never just from one thread. Rather, accumulated discussions over a period of years can gradually erode an old opinion or ideology, like running water over stone.

I've also changed my mind from discussions on Internet forums, this one included, and it was an immediate change because someone presented compelling evidence that contradicted my view.  I even take the time to say so, when it happens. 

"Sticking to your guns" just for the sake of doing so, is not a virtue.

 

[aleshanee]

..........

2. Whether born that way or not, it's also important to Christians whether it's sinful or not. I don't think it is, but I don't know if that's a discussion we can actually have here. I will not participate in a debate that's more of a verbal food fight.

no... you are right....... as long as people keep bowing to the tyranny preached by both the left and the right..... and labeling people "gay" based on their sex drives alone whether they have ever acted on it or not..... whether they have turned it over to God as they would with any other temptation or not...... and even when they reject the lifestyle associated with it........ then we cannot have a meaningful conversation about it...... ........it will continue to go down the same road it has gone before and only those either promoting the open practice of homosexuality or those condemning even the tendency to have a same attraction as abomination will have anything they say considered.......... ... and between them it will be nothing but a food fight...... ... which is the way they like it here...... and which is also why most of the people who could actually add meaningful thoughts to an issue like this generally stay away from it......

3) Why do people just focus on the men? Women can be homosexual too ya know. My gay friends include plenty of both.

because the bible generally focuses on the men....... i even had one member of this forum suggest to me recently in a pm that he thought the reason the bible is not as strong on condemning female same sex relationships as it is against the men is so that a man practicing what he saw as biblical polygamy could be in bed with 2 or more wives at the same time... having relations with all of the together...  and it not be a sin for the women.......

the secular world and certain fundamentalists all have very bent and demented ideas concerning this issue....... and none of it came from the bible........

 

[Izdaari]

I wonder if anyone has ever honestly changed their way of thinking from a thread. Besides the world assuming Christianity is just another arena to fight and prove power in.

I've changed my mind on a good many issues from discussions on internet forums, but never just from one thread. Rather, accumulated discussions over a period of years can gradually erode an old opinion or ideology, like running water over stone.

I've also changed my mind from discussions on Internet forums, this one included, and it was an immediate change because someone presented compelling evidence that contradicted my view.  I even take the time to say so, when it happens. 

"Sticking to your guns" just for the sake of doing so, is not a virtue.

Similarly, though not from an internet forum, someone made an argument that changed my entire worldview. It was a book by Ayn Rand, that changed me from a libertarian-leaning conservative to a full libertarian. Of course it wasn't just one book, but that one had a decisive impact and triggered the change.

Books have also had a big impact on my religious views: Books by Alan Watts and C.S. Lewis were decisive in changing me first from an agnostic to a Zen/Tao/Vedanta Eastern syncretist, and then to a Christian.