Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#441

Post by cat199 »

freddybobs wrote: post #321
throwaway0b1 wrote: post #230

This may be a very bad idea. But as (in the words of the at-present top comment) a fundamentalist adhering to scriptural literalism (aka a conservative Lutheran) [addendum: who does not hate everyone], I feel compelled to offer to answer questions anyone might have for me, so AMA. I don't really want to individually respond to everything throughout the rest of the comments, but I will begin by saying that most church…

What's your take on the dead sea scrolls ? How do the aspects of the early church align with scriptural literalism? Specifically the split of the early church between Paul and Jesus brother James. James was Jesus's choice to lead the church in his absence. A direction which aligned more with Judaism - including circumcision, and kosher foods. Yet later Christianity revolves around Paul at odds vision. Paul was a Roma…

> If this is correct, it means modern Christianity, is not based on Jesus stated future direction of his church.

One view is that this was resolved at the council described in acts, and all agreed. The view that there was some paul-led split that is covered up by the selection of the NT canon is often used by detractors of christianity, who typically try to frame Jesus as purely a jewish reformer, and that Paul was some 'kook' that invented his own religion (despite the texts that he was working with, rather than against, the rest of the apostles).

YMMV, but probably useful to be just as skeptical to sources on both sides when trying to ascertain what might have actually happened historically

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#442

Post by AuthorizedCust »

gonehome wrote: post #428
AuthorizedCust wrote: post #102

So many of the comments here are affirming what I have long observed: much anti-religious sentiment (“much”, not “all”!) is actually a reaction to fundamentalism, which is the bad theology of scriptural literalism, which brings heresies like hating LGBT, insisting the Bible is also a science textbook, superstitious views of certain Middle Eastern lands, and more. Growing up as a mainline Protestant, I thankfully didn…

I grew up mainline Protestant too before throwing it away (I was young ~12 which makes it easier). My objection is to the broken nature of the reasoning and how that tends to corrupt evidence based reasoning elsewhere most of them time (though weirdly not always - people are inconsistent). If the fundamentalists are a problem, maybe there’s a problem with the fundamentals? Obviously religious people remain the vast m…

> If the fundamentalists are a problem, maybe there’s a problem with the fundamentals?

That line would only hold if fundamentalists have correctly identified the fundamentals. I wage they have badly missed it, which is why their theology is so bad.

> being a good person or not is largely disconnected from religiousness

Being a good person is not the primary point of religion. It is rather a hoped for outcome. Religion is not therapy.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#443

Post by hackflip »

bopbeepboop wrote: post #262
subpixel wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if one believes, the notion that these often corrupt, sometimes malignant control organizations we call churches are a necessary expense of both time and money is a harder sell in the modern world. The social role that churches play is where the opening raises real concern. What comes after organized religion may well look more like conspiracy theory.

I would argue several modern problems trace to the collapse of churches as a social institution: - loneliness - lack of dating/marriage - lack of community infrastructure - lack of elder care If you look at existing charities, much of the rubber meets road work gets done by churches or church affiliated groups. You don’t have to like the message or the people, but I think it’s pretty obvious ditching churches without…

We threw out the baby with the bathwater.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#444

Post by ketzo »

jaywalk wrote: post #398
EliRivers wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where is the pull for good old family values? That's a term that everyone interprets their own way, without even realising that they have different values to the person standing next to them; different people's "family values" can conflict in significant and very incompatible ways. So what are "good old family values"? If your young, unmarried daughter falls pregnant, should you cast her out or should you double-down…

Good old family values would discourage young, unmarried women from getting pregnant in the first place. That is absolutely not how society works today, so let's start there instead of your absurd example.

Well, to pick a more contentious example, how would you find a marriage partner for that young women?

In many parts of the world, the answer is that her parents would either simply pick her partner or heavily influence her options. In much of the U.S., that would be unthinkable! How do we reconcile those different family values?

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#445

Post by prirun »

I grew up going to a Christian church: Sunday school when I was younger, then youth choir on Wednesday nights, then regular church service for a couple of years in my early teens. I sort of grew out of it as I got older, because as I started thinking about it more, it made less and less sense.

For example, I distinctly remember our youth group leader, who was the wife of the minister, saying in one of our classes that we have to fear God. I didn't get it, and asked her "Why are we supposed to fear someone that loves us?" She didn't have a good answer, because there isn't one; it's another one of those things the Bible says that makes no sense. At some point, for me, there were too many of those and I could no longer pretend that Christianity made sense.

To me, the Bible is a major problem for Christianity. If you believe the whole thing, it makes no sense. If you don't believe the whole thing, then it becomes a fragmenting thing where some groups pick and choose these parts and other groups pick and choose different parts. But once you go down the road of "I only believe part of it, you can't take it literally, la la la", you're on a very slippery slope.

The Bible is a story book, written by man. It has some good stories, some good advice, and some bad advice. There is no hard scientific evidence that any of the miraculous things that supposedly occurred really did occur.

Religious people believe that the Bible is the "word of God". One of my big problems with the Bible is that if it truly was the word of God, doesn't it seem reasonable that he would give us some clues about how we fit into the universe? I mean, our whole planet is a spec of dust in the grand scheme of things. If God invented all this, and the Bible is a sort of road map, wouldn't it make sense to talk a little about the other parts of the universe - the overwhelmingly huge part - and not just our little planet?

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#446

Post by thrww20210329 »

throwaway0b1 wrote: post #230

This may be a very bad idea. But as (in the words of the at-present top comment) a fundamentalist adhering to scriptural literalism (aka a conservative Lutheran) [addendum: who does not hate everyone], I feel compelled to offer to answer questions anyone might have for me, so AMA. I don't really want to individually respond to everything throughout the rest of the comments, but I will begin by saying that most church…

What do you think of the many miracles that the Catholic Church has received?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#447

Post by JeremyNT »

AuthorizedCust wrote: post #102

So many of the comments here are affirming what I have long observed: much anti-religious sentiment (“much”, not “all”!) is actually a reaction to fundamentalism, which is the bad theology of scriptural literalism, which brings heresies like hating LGBT, insisting the Bible is also a science textbook, superstitious views of certain Middle Eastern lands, and more. Growing up as a mainline Protestant, I thankfully didn…

The beauty of protestantism is that there is no ultimate arbiter to decide that one sect is "good" or "bad."

You view certain fundamentalists' interpretation as somehow "bad?" So what? They probably view your sect as being equally degenerate.

What gives you standing to cast this judgment?

The framework of Protestantism allows and accounts for these divergent views. So you really can't throw down the "no true Scotsman" fallacy against those sects you disagree with in its broader defense.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#448

Post by gonehome »

garmaine wrote: post #439
gonehome wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up mainline Protestant too before throwing it away (I was young ~12 which makes it easier). My objection is to the broken nature of the reasoning and how that tends to corrupt evidence based reasoning elsewhere most of them time (though weirdly not always - people are inconsistent). If the fundamentalists are a problem, maybe there’s a problem with the fundamentals? Obviously religious people remain the vast m…

> If they can’t get something basic right, why would they be right about something more complicated? Compartmentalization.

I think that's the reason it's possible, but how can you trust they've compartmentalized the right thing?

Basically you can be a great surgeon and religious, but you can't be a great evolutionary biologist and a creationist (at least not without some serious blinders).

If I'm talking to a doctor that's a creationist and they're skeptical about a vaccine - my prior would be that it's more likely this doctor was corrupted by anti-vaxx pseudoscience woo than has an accurate model of the vaccine's risk. I'd want to talk to someone who I know doesn't have a core example of corrupted reasoning.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#449

Post by TimTheTinker »

jaywalk wrote: post #398
EliRivers wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where is the pull for good old family values? That's a term that everyone interprets their own way, without even realising that they have different values to the person standing next to them; different people's "family values" can conflict in significant and very incompatible ways. So what are "good old family values"? If your young, unmarried daughter falls pregnant, should you cast her out or should you double-down…

Good old family values would discourage young, unmarried women from getting pregnant in the first place. That is absolutely not how society works today, so let's start there instead of your absurd example.

They would also encourage helping the weak, the down-and-out, etc.

There was a time in the US when a needy person could walk up to nearly any door (except perhaps those of a few known scoundrels) and expect to find a meal, a bed for the night, clothes if needed, breakfast, and (depending on circumstances) some work to do the next day for pay.

The first great awakening had a profound effect on society - sermons preached in the 1700s directly influenced the US founders, belief in God and moral accountability to him became a basic assumption of society.

"Family values" is a term that focuses on where Biblical teachings have the most impact (the family) but it fails to capture the worldview within which such values arise.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#450

Post by jordanpg »

jimhefferon wrote: post #239
justaman wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes beyond fairy tails. There is a sense of community that (for the most part) only religion has been able to maintain in the information age.

> a sense of community I'm sorry to see the downvotes since this as an intelligent point. I'm not religious but one thing I do envy in my church-going friends is fellowship. I'm a man in my 60's, and maybe all this is not applicable for the majority of folks here. But people don't have groups like clubs or bowling leagues very much anymore. Watching TV at home is fine, but not enough. (I'm in a club that is now break…

Much like claims about morality, the claim of the religious to be the only glue that can hold communities together is an obviously false claim that the religious get to make with a straight face because of the moment in history that we live in. In the United States, the primacy of Christianity over the last few hundred years has resulted in a culture that maintains nonsensical claims like these enshrined and untouchable.

Of course, this had to change eventually because the underlying supernatural theories are self-evidently false.

For minus the supernatural claims, religious is just another secular organization which fosters certain cultural and social beliefs, like many, many, many others. There is nothing special about religion and there never has been. Human beings do not require certain questions to be answered with recourse to magic in order to function. See the atomic theory for a counterexample.

I beg the moderates among us to agree that community is good, but to insist that it need not come with ridiculous magic strings attached.

Post reply on HN