Like most of what people do and are, religious beliefs and practices are based primarily on the culture they’re raised in. When the culture no longer supports certain beliefs and practices, they erode very quickly: A single generation will see major effects.

It’s very common for various social ills to be blamed on the loss of religious faith in countries like ours, and I have gotten to the point of life that I actually agree. What we don’t see, however, is much discussion of the reasons for that change. It’s like blaming election results on the fact that our side doesn’t vote as it should, but without attempting to determine—or at least admit—why it doesn’t vote. It’s very comforting to find something to blame other than the beliefs and practices themselves, regardless of whether those beliefs and practices are political or religious.

I am currently rereading the book Godless by Dan Barker that wasn’t published until 2008, but which discusses his earlier deconversion from being an evangelical Christian preacher to atheism. When I went through something similar long ago such works were very rare, in fact I don’t recall seeing any until much later. Today, however, there are many books and countless Internet videos that discuss things like the history of the Christian Church and its Bibles as well as the bases and logic of their beliefs and practices. It would therefore be easy to blame those forces for the decline in church membership and attendance.

But even though I am very familiar with them because of my personal interest, I cannot for a moment believe that they have any significant impact on the cultural changes we are seeing. When we can’t expect national leaders to know enough about history to realize that dancing with dictators is a bad idea, what gen Xer, Yer, or Zer has the slightest interest in knowing how the New Testament canon came to be or why the problem of evil (“theodicy”) was the reason why an evangelical Christian scholar became an atheist?

My point of all this is that in neither case, religion or politics, the symptom, i.e., lack of participation, should be confused with the cause which, fundamentally, is “Why should I do (or believe) that?” Without such understanding there will be neither the attendance or votes.

quote:

It’s very common for various social ills to be blamed on the loss of religious faith in countries like ours, and I have gotten to the point of life that I actually agree. What we don’t see, however, is much discussion of the reasons for that change.

My outlook on that, as previously expressed at the link, and re-posted below.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...300045125#4300045125

A Christian perspective on the matter of the OP title "The United States has been led to ruin since WWII" is...

We began to worship the blessings, rather than the blesser.

Sigmonkey got it right with his mention of our "love of the spoils of war".

In anguish and desperation, starting in the Great Depression, and culminating in WWII, we turned toward God. We temporarily praised Him in the wake of the war, but eventually a young generation living in an age of unprecedented prosperity shifted their focus away from God. The effect was compounded by the previous generations dying. With those generations that had the broader and deeper perspective gone, the new generations turned toward the world.

It's a recurring topic in preaching: The decline of Godliness in America starting in the mid 20th century.

This isn’t my thread and I don’t want to derail it, but saying that people started worshipping the blessings rather than the Blesser, it goes back to my question of why? Why did they do that? Aren’t there reasons to worship the Blesser, including for having provided the much greater blessings? Can’t that be made clear, or are hard times necessary to convince people that they should be grateful for what they do have and to turn to divine help for what they don’t?

That’s a rhetorical question in this context for which I expect no answers, and as I say, I don’t want my input to affect these discussions.

quote:

I realize most Catholic/protestant disagreements resort to papal authority or priestly celibacy or Vatican II but what really matters is believing the Biblical gospel and not adding anything to the gospel.

Or removing anything.

"Plus nothing minus nothing"

We all know and agree. Just thought I'd reinforce anyway.

Where doctrinal and theological differences are concerned, I have found myself in a season of nonchalance. Be it differences between Catholics and Protestants, Orthodox and pretty much everyone, Reformed and mainline Protestantism, affiliated and independent, whatever.

Notice I did not mention things like Universalism and Unitarianism. There are theological issues there that are irreconcilable.

Some may say there are irreconcilable differences among that larger list too. And my outlook may very well change given time and wisdom granted. But, right now, I feel that all those believers can hunker down on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, plus nothing minus nothing. How can we enhance our relationship with God through Christian fellowship and encouragement in obedience and cooperation with the Holy Ghost? How can we embolden each other to evangelize? How can we spur each other on to love and good works?

We have a great fellowship in this thread, incorporating believers from across the entire denominational spectrum. We do enjoy discussing our differences, I think. It has us exercising our minds and spirits in a largely good way. At the end of the day, we always settle back down to agreement on the fundamentals of the faith. Therein He grants us the merciful gift of Salvation by grace though faith.

We should always come back to that as a point from which we should reset and press forward in Christian fellowship. Encouraging one another to obey our Savior out of gratitude and respect, and cooperate with His Holy Spirit that He gave to guide us.

I certainly agree with taking nothing away from the gospel but that typically comes from Islam or very fringe groups.

As to your point about immaterial differences between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant beliefs, some differences are trivial but many are not. I'm not sure what the cause is (perhaps a social media phenomenon) but lately there seems to be a lot of interest in Catholicism and Orthodoxy and it's important to understand what those churches teach and believe. As a protestant I echo the 'Semper Reformanda' call of the Reformation. Not wanted to start a new or different church but wanting the church the return to the teachings of the church founded by Christ in the first century.

I would argue that my beliefs are more catholic than Roman Catholic or Orthodox teachings that add so many doctrines that are not catholic (universal). For instance, as I mentioned prior, I could never agree that worship or veneration of the "image of the spotless Mother of God" is a required practice of the believer or that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ. Are protestants that believe in the Holy Bible more catholic than those who hold to tradition such as Roman Catholics?

I appreciate your differentiation between catholic and Roman Catholic.

On the topic of Mary, I am sure any mature Roman Catholic would assure you that they do not worship her. Veneration is not synonymous with worship. I also believe they somewhat recently clarified their position on co-mediation.

quote:

Are protestants that believe in the Holy Bible more catholic than those who hold to tradition such as Roman Catholics?

Interesting question, and I think fair to boot.

I do think "deference to the Word of God" is better wording than "believe the Holy Bible". I think it's come up in this discussion before, and I know I've seen it elsewhere, that parallels can be drawn between veneration of Mary and veneration of a bound book. Ultimately of minimal importance, but folks like to split hairs these days, and I think it's important to minimize opportunities for undermining discussion of more important matters.

My ultimate position on Mary, at this point in time, is one of logical (I think) nonchalance.

A Roman Catholic may find themselves with much to answer for at the judgement seat, concerning idolatry. In this life they think they'll temporarily suffer in purgatory for this-that-and-the-other sin before being admitted to paradise, but they'll realize the truth at the Judgement Seat of Christ, and those sins may be more than they expect. A believer is heaven-bound. Some may be at least momentarily surprised by what happens in between this life and the next.

quote:

On the topic of Mary, I am sure any mature Roman Catholic would assure you that they do not worship her. Veneration is not synonymous with worship.

Mary is not God. No one worships Mary.

quote:

A Roman Catholic may find themselves with much to answer for at the judgement seat, concerning idolatry.

I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that Catholics are more guilty of idolatry than others?

Idolatry is the worship of a physical object, image, or created thing as though it were a deity, or an immoderate, ultimate devotion to something other than God.
The classic biblical example is the worship of the golden calf at Mount Sinai.

Why do you single out Catholics for this sin?