[frogperson]

Church groups, or at least an awful lot of them, were co-opted by groups like the Council For National Policy (parent group of the Heritage Foundation). I think a lot of younger folks see through the BS and don't want to send their time listening to hate speech discussed as gospel.

These churches chose thier path, and so did their parishioners.

[YinglingHeavy]

As a Nietzschean it is amusing, this argument that Christianity is losing favor because it is...not moral enough!

Truly our institutions are post-Christianity. The herd morality has out survived Christianity itself. Nietzsche's nightmare

[PsylentKnight]

It’s losing favor because it’s lacking in a lot of ways. The most exhorted virtue in the church is faith, which is just another word for irrationality. So the church often ends up in conflict with reality or even its own doctrine

Its more difficult to maintain this when everyone has a device in their pocket that allows them to access information and people outside their church bubble

[mjevans]

The nightmare is not outgrowing the child version of 'how to morality'. It's moving past it without reaching the enlightenment of being moral because it's the best large scale and long term strategy.

Instead the grown psychopathic children all move for instant gratification and rewards in the now, damn the cost of society and civilization long term.

I want to reach Orville / Star Trek, thank you!

[inigyou]

When you say you want to reach Orville, are you referring to the episode where everyone wears an upvote counter badge? Because I can see that one coming true.

[antonymoose]

What church(es) are you thinking of here exactly? I’ve never heard of any such group in my entire independent Southern Baptist life.

On the contrary, most folks in the 20-40 range are tired of “cafeteria Christian” denominations that pick and chose which parts of scripture to stand by and which go ignore based on ever shifting social trends, whether it be so-called woke churches hosting drag performers or Boomer-tier Endtimes preachers that can’t stop talking about their all expense paid Israeli “pilgrimage.”

[dpark]

> I’ve never heard of any such group in my entire independent Southern Baptist life.

I grew up in the South and distinctly remember the Southern Baptist preachings against interracial marriage based on selective (mis)readings of the Bible, against homosexuality based on selective readings of the Old Testament (pick and choose indeed; hate gays while eating your BBQ pork). I remember the constant calls for boycott of Disney parks because of “gay days”.

I don’t know what it’s like I’m a Southern Baptist church now, but I seriously doubt it’s changed much.

[antonymoose]

Well, that’s quite a bit of baggage to unpack.

In regards to “miscegenation” we have Galatians which largely renders that point moot, highlighting everyone’s love of cherry-picking scripture.

In regards to homosexuality, you have Leviticus, I assume you’re referencing. Given the widespread practice of man-boy relations as famously highlighted by the Spartans and of course recent special military operations in Afghanistan I have an incredibly hard time believing this piece of scripture is at all misinterpreted.

Regarding BBQ, I assume that’s a presence to kosher law and subsequently an attempt at calling hypocrite on the congregation. In that regard we have quite a few pieces of scripture, e.g. in Mark, effectively redefining and negating much of kosher law thereby making that issue moot.

Overall - your assumption around Southern Baptists largely stands. Our last church, my wife had to constantly deal with snide remarks because of her having previously been married to a man that went and overdosed on fentanyl. Meanwhile half the grandparents in the congregation are raising their own grandchildren for the exact same reason…

Which leads to our currently being “unchurched” as they say, because the worst part of Christianity is the other Christians ;)

[dpark]

> Given the widespread practice of man-boy … I have an incredibly hard time believing this piece of scripture is at all misinterpreted.

I’m struggling with this statement. Are you saying that Leviticus is actually only anti-pedophile and not anti-gay (and so all these conservative Christian preachers are willfully misrepresenting it), or are you continuing the long tradition of falsely linking homosexuality with pedophilia? Is there some other interpretation I’m missing?

> Regarding BBQ, I assume that’s a presence to kosher law and subsequently an attempt at calling hypocrite on the congregation. In that regard we have quite a few pieces of scripture, e.g. in Mark, effectively redefining and negating much of kosher law thereby making that issue moot.

I mean, pork is only one of a million things forbidden in Leviticus that modern Christians ignore. Why is charging interest on loans okay now? Where’s the part where Mark says that’s cool? What about period sex? Seems that rule is gone, too. Where is the passage that says “Pretty much everything in Leviticus is irrelevant except the gay thing”?

[antonymoose]

If you read Mark and the entirety of New Testament in good faith you would know the answer :)

It’s your actions and not your culinary habits. If you chose to fornicate you’re sinning. Nothing in the New Testament reneges on that. Intentionally endorsing lifestyles that promote such acts are bad per the scripture.

If you don’t believe that and choose to”good feels” and statism as your God, that’s your choice.

[dpark]

> If you read…

Nah. I will decline to (re)read several hundred pages to try to find the answer you cannot provide.

You didn’t even answer my straightforward question about what you meant with your seeming homosexuality-pedophilia link.

> If you chose to fornicate you’re sinning.

Then can I assume you support gay marriage?

[toast0]

> It’s your actions and not your culinary habits.

Is eating no longer an action? Do you not have a choice of what you eat in most circumstances?

[Exoristos]

You seem to be conflating Abrahamic religions.

[dpark]

I’m curious what you mean by this. Leviticus is specifically included in the Christian Bible.

[flir]

"much of"?

[mghackerlady]

I find the condemnation of people like me based on a few things in the old testament amusing, because like. You know you're supposed to ignore that right? Are you Jewish? No? Then that covenant doesn't apply

[watwut]

So like, scripture has issue with drag performance? I read bible, actually, and can argue it does not mention it.

That being said, every single denomination picks and chooses. Especially more conservative ones. And in fact, you cant take it all literally and quite a lot is not applicable.

[antonymoose]

You are correct it neither endorses nor denigrates the specific practice. So why then do we have a church hosting the performances? It’s not relevant to the faith at all? Identity politics entered the chat, unfortunately.

Which leads back to my point, there is a hunger for churches that ignore the intentional blend of secular belief systems in any direction.

[watwut]

> there is a hunger for churches that ignore the intentional blend of secular belief systems in any direction.

You are expressing hunger for openly political church. The one that will reject yout political ennemies regardless of faith.

Your opposition to drag is literally identity politics - rejection due to assumed identity. After all men only and women only groups im church go back to over thousand years.

Churches traditionally hosted musical and other performances not strictly related to scripture. Between musoc and groups and socialization and even sports, all of that wqs part of it.

[beardyw]

> pick and chose which parts of scripture to stand by

OK. Next time you read the parable of the good Samaritan I want you to reframe it as "The Good Drag Queen". That's how you are meant to see it.

[antonymoose]

I read it as a take encouraging me to render aid to anyone in a dire emergency regardless of their background.

[dpark]

That’s a very narrow reading. The parable was in response to the question “who’s my neighbor” in the “love thy neighbor” statement and Jesus basically said “even those you hate”(i.e. the Samaritans).

[antonymoose]

I can love you and still disagree with the things you do and not endorse them. These are not in conflict.

[dpark]

This claim hinges on the idea that homosexuality is a thing you do and not a part of who you are. You can love someone while hating a thing they do. You cannot love someone while hating who they are.

The conservative Christian notion that homosexuality is a choice to is honestly super weird to me because I certainly never chose heterosexuality. It’s one of those things that only makes sense while you’re in it and it’s constantly being beat into you, and with some distance you see that it’s ridiculous.

[wizzwizz4]

Oftentimes, they are in conflict. "I love you, my Samaritan neighbour: but I disagree with your practice of sacrificing to God upon the altar at Mount Gerizim, as opposed to the altar at Temple Mount, as is right and proper; and your copy of scripture differs from mine at thousands of points, for which I condemn yours as erroneous and heretical; and I disagree with your practice of speaking the Name on holy days, for we lost that tradition with our priesthood at the destruction of the Second Temple, and therefore you must also discard the practice, for those who speak the Name have no part in the world to come; and really I'd rather you stopped being a Samaritan altogether." Does that sound like love, to you?

[wizzwizz4]

"Even those you hate" is too strong a reading, in my view. "Even those you are bigoted towards", perhaps. (Jesus did say elsewhere to love your enemies, but I don't think this parable says that.)

[dpark]

> Even those you are bigoted towards

I agree this is a better reading. Of course this makes it even more apt guidance for the Southern Baptists (and others) who preach bigotry.