Is the modern church in danger?
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
Is it political only?
I'd like a viewpoint of those less politically motivated.
My faith isn't a political tool.
I'd like a viewpoint of those less politically motivated.
My faith isn't a political tool.
And that's not an acknowledgement of where I stand on marriage and who can or can't partake.
The question is unassuming and sincere. I'd appreciate like contributions.
The question is unassuming and sincere. I'd appreciate like contributions.
BRT, I presume you mean the Catholic Church and everyone else...
To the OP, my take is that if you mean Christian churches in the United States I would say the chasm between the old church and the new church will only continue to grow with more and more people gravitating to one end or the other... Sociology is playing the biggest role in this divide forcing either a double down or adaption of tradition views on epistemology, ecclesiology, and soteriology.
The old church isn't any more "on the ropes" with recent public policy decisions than they were before - rather they actually may benefit from a strong back lash with people of like minds rallying together.
But the long term trend is not promising for religion in the US.
http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/...religiosity-in-one-graph-2013-hits-a-new-low/
To the OP, my take is that if you mean Christian churches in the United States I would say the chasm between the old church and the new church will only continue to grow with more and more people gravitating to one end or the other... Sociology is playing the biggest role in this divide forcing either a double down or adaption of tradition views on epistemology, ecclesiology, and soteriology.
The old church isn't any more "on the ropes" with recent public policy decisions than they were before - rather they actually may benefit from a strong back lash with people of like minds rallying together.
But the long term trend is not promising for religion in the US.
http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/...religiosity-in-one-graph-2013-hits-a-new-low/
I'm a Christian who doesn't attend church. I'm tired of the holier than thou, hypocritical fashion show fascinated with everyone else's sins instead of their own.
I give my time and money to a secular service organization that doesn't judge the people it helps. I feel that the secular charity lives more by the Christian tenants than most ever church I've ever entered.
I give my time and money to a secular service organization that doesn't judge the people it helps. I feel that the secular charity lives more by the Christian tenants than most ever church I've ever entered.
I'm Catholic and attend Mass every weekend. (some of you lefties would be very disappointed in the gay marriage homily last night). I have never encountered the "holier than though" attitude at our church. Personally, and to each his own, but many people use the "I don't go to church because i don't like organized religion" statement as an excuse to not have to go to a service on weekend or be involved in a church activity because they lose some of their precious computer, tv or gaming time.
It's obvious that religion isn't in the heart of as many people as it once was by looking at our own nation. Immorality, hate, self-centeredness...you name it has become more prevalent since the attack on religion began in the 60's.
It's obvious that religion isn't in the heart of as many people as it once was by looking at our own nation. Immorality, hate, self-centeredness...you name it has become more prevalent since the attack on religion began in the 60's.
And this bit:
Not trying to make the case whether this is good or bad (not really what the OP was asking) but the facts are the facts - organized religion is on the decline in the US.
Not trying to make the case whether this is good or bad (not really what the OP was asking) but the facts are the facts - organized religion is on the decline in the US.
Mainline denominations that have compromised their historical principles and doctrines are struggling mightily. The bottom is falling out in their numbers.
Conservative evangelical churches that emphasize biblical authority and evangelism are holding steady. Southern Baptists are the exception, they are experiencing a slight decline.
I'm not sure on the numbers with Catholicism, but I assume that the numbers are fairly constant.
The big drop in our culture regarding Christianity has been the honesty of those who formerly would have been categorized as nominal Christians (look it up). Instead of giving the knee-jerk reactionary comment that they are a Christian, even though they have no connection to any local congregation; they are now honestly saying they are not Christian. This seismic shift bleeds over into our culture and affects things politically and ethically, which is what is being played in our eyes out at a rapid pace.
Conservative evangelical churches that emphasize biblical authority and evangelism are holding steady. Southern Baptists are the exception, they are experiencing a slight decline.
I'm not sure on the numbers with Catholicism, but I assume that the numbers are fairly constant.
The big drop in our culture regarding Christianity has been the honesty of those who formerly would have been categorized as nominal Christians (look it up). Instead of giving the knee-jerk reactionary comment that they are a Christian, even though they have no connection to any local congregation; they are now honestly saying they are not Christian. This seismic shift bleeds over into our culture and affects things politically and ethically, which is what is being played in our eyes out at a rapid pace.
No, First of all their is no war on Christians, no mass plot to destroy the church, gay marriage and the ACA are no threat to the true church. Don't mistake Freedom from Religion which clearly is on the rise in America with a decline of Freedom of Religion.
Secondly, it is true church attendance has declined in the last fifty years. There are no longer social pressure to attend church to be accepted into society. This is not necessarily a bad thing for the church. People now attend church because of their personal faith not because it is expected of them.
More then 50% of the population still attends church on a regular basis. Name anything else with that kind of participation in our society. According to Mitt Romney that's a higher percentage of people then actually have jobs.
Secondly, it is true church attendance has declined in the last fifty years. There are no longer social pressure to attend church to be accepted into society. This is not necessarily a bad thing for the church. People now attend church because of their personal faith not because it is expected of them.
More then 50% of the population still attends church on a regular basis. Name anything else with that kind of participation in our society. According to Mitt Romney that's a higher percentage of people then actually have jobs.
I hope you're right. So far this has not been the case in other countries that changed their laws re: gay marriage.
The biggest problem "the church" faces is that people think it belongs on the political board.
I'd be interested in a study that explored attendance drops in other aspects of society since 2007... I have a feeling the smart phone and social media revolution(s) has as much to do with this recent Pew survey as anything.
The last numbers I saw indicated all religions in the US except the evangelicals have declining memberships. The evangelicals had a less than one percent increase. The "nones," or people who don't identify with any particular church continue to grow.
The way I see it, is "Church" in many respects used to serve as the "Facebook" of the day. A lot of people went to church to see and be seen.
I had a buddy back in L.A. whose dad was one of those "sales guys" straight out of central casting back in the 60's and 70's. The dad "attended" three different churches in the area, two on Sunday and one on Wednesday night. Not because he was devout, but because that's where he got his best sales leads.
Growing up, I can remember the fellowship hour that followed the main service (with the children's and adult bible study held prior to the worship service.) That aspect of it was intended to be about socializing and visiting with other church members. These days, actually meeting face to face and engaging in this sort of social activity seems to have fallen out of favor (unfortunately.)
I would question whether the actual number of "actual believers" has dropped, or have stopped attending services/church. But I would say that the number of people who may have felt the necessity to do so in the past are no longer seemingly bound by public opinion and can cop to being marginal believers or really kind of agnostic with no strong feelings about it either way. The kind of people who would rather make use of their Sundays doing other things than going to church. In other words, a lot of those who would have went to church 30 yrs ago, now don't feel the need to do so as it's more acceptable to not belong to a church.
I had a buddy back in L.A. whose dad was one of those "sales guys" straight out of central casting back in the 60's and 70's. The dad "attended" three different churches in the area, two on Sunday and one on Wednesday night. Not because he was devout, but because that's where he got his best sales leads.
Growing up, I can remember the fellowship hour that followed the main service (with the children's and adult bible study held prior to the worship service.) That aspect of it was intended to be about socializing and visiting with other church members. These days, actually meeting face to face and engaging in this sort of social activity seems to have fallen out of favor (unfortunately.)
I would question whether the actual number of "actual believers" has dropped, or have stopped attending services/church. But I would say that the number of people who may have felt the necessity to do so in the past are no longer seemingly bound by public opinion and can cop to being marginal believers or really kind of agnostic with no strong feelings about it either way. The kind of people who would rather make use of their Sundays doing other things than going to church. In other words, a lot of those who would have went to church 30 yrs ago, now don't feel the need to do so as it's more acceptable to not belong to a church.
Sorry, RedSon, I didn't have time to read the thread, then I misread your question and responded to something you didn't ask.
Yes, CBrad, I do think the "modern church" is in danger, but the word 'modern' needs clarification, and I don't see a reduced influence of the church as a 'danger,' but rather a blessing to the nation.
If 'modern' means the new rock-concert-style religious services available in Stillwater at several different churches, maybe it's doing OK, inasmuch as those churches seem to represent the new evangelical church -- the only denomination(?) not in decline. These churches have seen the writing on the wall and changed their services to bring in a younger, more hip and more politically conservative crowd.
The church has proven to be adaptive through the ages and perhaps these new "sunshine and lollipops" churches are the answer to wanna-be-believers who can't stomach the old, musty, wooden-floored churches of their grandparents. It's good marketing. Most of us want to feel part of a group of like-minded people.
Meanwhile, membership in the more liberal protestant churches is declining because those people thought for several generations that they could believe what the church stood for on Sunday morning and also believe what the real world told them Monday through Saturday. The cognitive dissonance finally overpowered them and they are bravely turning away from their superstitious past and stepping into the light of reason.
The Catholic Church is shrinking so fast it's closing churches. The New York Archdiocese expects one third of it's churches to merge or close their doors and it admits it can't find enough men interested in the priesthood to replace the dying and retiring priests. Georgetown University says the number of parishes in the US peaked at about 19,705 in 1988 and diminished by 10% to less than 17,500 now.
A few more statements of liberalism from Pope Francis may lead to a modern-age New Schism anyway. I guess the US is the last bastion of conservative Catholicism in the world. Places like Argentina, the Pope's home claims 90% of the population is Catholic but only about 20-30% of those attend mass. If the Catholics do split again, will anyone notice? Just one more denomination calling itself 'Christian.'
It's a shame the all-powerful Almighty was unable to get his thoughts across more succinctly. Can you imagine a Bible so simple that every single Christian on the planet was a member of the exact same church? No in-fighting, no disagreements about the simple things. How much water do you really need to be baptized? Who needs to witness it? How old should you be? Do you really have to be baptized anyway? Gosh, what we need is a book with all the rules in it.
The internet has made comparison shopping so easy, anyone can learn a great deal about different churches in a few evenings. But the knowledge of the differences begs the question, which one is right? When they all say, "We're right," and a few even say, "We're the only ones who are right," it starts getting easier for the potential church member to respond, "well, you can't all be right, but you could sure all be wrong. I think I'll just do without."
Now, for the 'danger.' I don't see a danger in reducing the number of science-deniers in our midst. If there ever were a danger to the US, it's this new-found belief among believers that they have a right to force their baseless so-called-science world-views on American schoolchildren. "Teach the Controversy!" is the biggest and stupidest carnival show in the South.
There is no controversy. Evolution has been the law of the land since well before there was land. It took a long, long time and a courageous Christian named Darwin to figure it out. What terrifies me about evangelicals controlling school boards is that I believe they are the heart of why we have lost the lead in scientific leadership in the world. Our kids can't do advanced math and they are taught that true biology is based on words written 2-3,000 years ago by desert sheepherders.
Kids in those districts are taught that no science is important because the end of the world is fast approaching anyway. There's no need to investigate futuristic energy needs, we'll be sitting at the feet of Jesus by the middle of this century. The conservative politicians over whom these evangelicals exert their most powerful influence say some of the most outrageously wrong "scientific" statements imaginable. Then, their idiotic pronouncements are taken as gospel (forgive me) because, "Oh, it must be true, he/she is a US Representative/Senator/Governor/Whatever."
Islam continues to grow, but sadly, mostly by the sword, which works pretty well, just ask most indigenous people around the world who ran into Catholicism from around the Dark Ages through the 1800's or so. Europe is likely to become a holy battleground in the next few generations. The war will eventually spill across the Atlantic. Millions will die. History will call it the Second Hundred Years War or somesuch and whoever wins will declare that their god, their religion, their superstitions were more powerful and real than those of the losers and the winners will go back to believing what a wonderful thing religion is.
And so it goes.
If I can refrain from participating in a war on religious grounds, can I also be a conscientious objector in a holy war if my reason won't allow me to kill people?
Yes, CBrad, I do think the "modern church" is in danger, but the word 'modern' needs clarification, and I don't see a reduced influence of the church as a 'danger,' but rather a blessing to the nation.
If 'modern' means the new rock-concert-style religious services available in Stillwater at several different churches, maybe it's doing OK, inasmuch as those churches seem to represent the new evangelical church -- the only denomination(?) not in decline. These churches have seen the writing on the wall and changed their services to bring in a younger, more hip and more politically conservative crowd.
The church has proven to be adaptive through the ages and perhaps these new "sunshine and lollipops" churches are the answer to wanna-be-believers who can't stomach the old, musty, wooden-floored churches of their grandparents. It's good marketing. Most of us want to feel part of a group of like-minded people.
Meanwhile, membership in the more liberal protestant churches is declining because those people thought for several generations that they could believe what the church stood for on Sunday morning and also believe what the real world told them Monday through Saturday. The cognitive dissonance finally overpowered them and they are bravely turning away from their superstitious past and stepping into the light of reason.
The Catholic Church is shrinking so fast it's closing churches. The New York Archdiocese expects one third of it's churches to merge or close their doors and it admits it can't find enough men interested in the priesthood to replace the dying and retiring priests. Georgetown University says the number of parishes in the US peaked at about 19,705 in 1988 and diminished by 10% to less than 17,500 now.
A few more statements of liberalism from Pope Francis may lead to a modern-age New Schism anyway. I guess the US is the last bastion of conservative Catholicism in the world. Places like Argentina, the Pope's home claims 90% of the population is Catholic but only about 20-30% of those attend mass. If the Catholics do split again, will anyone notice? Just one more denomination calling itself 'Christian.'
It's a shame the all-powerful Almighty was unable to get his thoughts across more succinctly. Can you imagine a Bible so simple that every single Christian on the planet was a member of the exact same church? No in-fighting, no disagreements about the simple things. How much water do you really need to be baptized? Who needs to witness it? How old should you be? Do you really have to be baptized anyway? Gosh, what we need is a book with all the rules in it.
The internet has made comparison shopping so easy, anyone can learn a great deal about different churches in a few evenings. But the knowledge of the differences begs the question, which one is right? When they all say, "We're right," and a few even say, "We're the only ones who are right," it starts getting easier for the potential church member to respond, "well, you can't all be right, but you could sure all be wrong. I think I'll just do without."
Now, for the 'danger.' I don't see a danger in reducing the number of science-deniers in our midst. If there ever were a danger to the US, it's this new-found belief among believers that they have a right to force their baseless so-called-science world-views on American schoolchildren. "Teach the Controversy!" is the biggest and stupidest carnival show in the South.
There is no controversy. Evolution has been the law of the land since well before there was land. It took a long, long time and a courageous Christian named Darwin to figure it out. What terrifies me about evangelicals controlling school boards is that I believe they are the heart of why we have lost the lead in scientific leadership in the world. Our kids can't do advanced math and they are taught that true biology is based on words written 2-3,000 years ago by desert sheepherders.
Kids in those districts are taught that no science is important because the end of the world is fast approaching anyway. There's no need to investigate futuristic energy needs, we'll be sitting at the feet of Jesus by the middle of this century. The conservative politicians over whom these evangelicals exert their most powerful influence say some of the most outrageously wrong "scientific" statements imaginable. Then, their idiotic pronouncements are taken as gospel (forgive me) because, "Oh, it must be true, he/she is a US Representative/Senator/Governor/Whatever."
Islam continues to grow, but sadly, mostly by the sword, which works pretty well, just ask most indigenous people around the world who ran into Catholicism from around the Dark Ages through the 1800's or so. Europe is likely to become a holy battleground in the next few generations. The war will eventually spill across the Atlantic. Millions will die. History will call it the Second Hundred Years War or somesuch and whoever wins will declare that their god, their religion, their superstitions were more powerful and real than those of the losers and the winners will go back to believing what a wonderful thing religion is.
And so it goes.
If I can refrain from participating in a war on religious grounds, can I also be a conscientious objector in a holy war if my reason won't allow me to kill people?
Be curious to hear how and why gay marriage has effected church attendance negatively in other countries. Honestly curious about it.
Here you go.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...rested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/June/Evangelist-Released-Homophobic-Hate-Speech-Arrest/
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2010/05/pastor-jailed-for-saying-homosexuality.html
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/12/pastor-found-guilty-of-hate-crime.html
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2013/03/supremes-rule-bible-as-hate-speech-in.html
We live in dark times (or the other way around depending on your perspective).
Yeah but none of those links really explain how legalization of gay marriage has produced a decline in church attendance. I'm not saying it is not happening. Just would like to hear why. No matter where you stand on the issue I'm not sure why it would hurt church attendance.
Oh I see. The gay marriage ruling hasn't affected church attendance from my perspective.
The decreasing influence of religion in culture does have a direct effect on the ruling we saw Friday.
If Christianity was a prominent influence, politicians on both sides of the aisle would suddenly get a dose of religion. As it stands they give religion lip service and that's about it. Most Americans are too short sighted to pay attention to what's actually going on and what their elected officials are actually doing. I don't know why Friday's decision should have come as a sudden shock or surprise -- we've been rolling this direction for a long time.
It's not your believes that are causing anyone to view you as a bigot it's the way conservatives treat those who disagree with them singling out the sin of homosexuality above all others.
The bible also teaches the pre marital sex is a sin, adultery is a sin, divorce is a sin. Somewhere around 5% of the population is gay, where as more the 50% of the population and this board for that matter engaged in pre marital sex, the divorce rate is 50% in this country. Where is Mike Huckabee's outrage on these issues?
We have all accepted divorce people right to marry in this country. Only the Catholic church has the courage (?) to refuse to perform marriages of divorced people. Of course they don't recognize marriages outside the church anyway. That not gay marriage is why Catholic attendance is dropping. Does Mike believe a country clerk should be allowed to refused to issue a marriage license to a divorce people or an inter racial couple based on their beliefs? How about people marring outside the faith?
What we have done is removed everyone's individual religious beliefs from the government's legal definition of marriage. This is a good thing for many people including some who choose to ignore it. The irony of Friday's decision is that without the supreme court decision of Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 dissenting judge's Clarence Thomas's own marriage is illegal in his home state of Virginia.
Sin is Sin and only God will be able to judge justly IMO. I agree that all these people freaking out about this forget about all the other evil in the world. My only fear is because the good book says it is a sin then LBGT will use it to say I have hate when in fact that isn't true at all. I think weather or not someone has accepted Jesus Crist as their savor is way more important then someone's sexual orientation.
Pokewithnoname,
And once again you dance around the issue raised above. Yes, we know that Paul/Saul appears to have written about homosexuality being a sin.
But you know who directly said that those who divorce and remarry (with the sole exception of when your spouse is committing adultery) are living in a constant state of "sin" (adultery)? Jesus, that's who - Matthew 19:3-12. Does your church have members who are divorced and remarried? Does your church/pastor hold wedding ceremonies for those who are divorced and want to remarry?
Then you, your church and your ministers are DIRECTLY disobeying your marching orders, received from God/Jesus himself.
Can you please grasp why so many of the rest of us think that many churches/Christians our nothing but a bunch if hypocrites who pick and choose the "sin" that you feel you must fight? All the while turning a blind eye (hell, their not even turning a blind eye, they're flat out ENDORSING and participating, legitimizing and "blessing" sinful activity) because somehow it doesn't seem to offend them as much.
Now, can you please directly address this issue and explain to me why churches (and I'm assuming your church is one of them) seem to be completely cool with divorcees who remarry and are living in a perpetual state of sin, but seem to get so damned worked up about gay marriage even though your churches do not have to participate or accept same?
And once again you dance around the issue raised above. Yes, we know that Paul/Saul appears to have written about homosexuality being a sin.
But you know who directly said that those who divorce and remarry (with the sole exception of when your spouse is committing adultery) are living in a constant state of "sin" (adultery)? Jesus, that's who - Matthew 19:3-12. Does your church have members who are divorced and remarried? Does your church/pastor hold wedding ceremonies for those who are divorced and want to remarry?
Then you, your church and your ministers are DIRECTLY disobeying your marching orders, received from God/Jesus himself.
Can you please grasp why so many of the rest of us think that many churches/Christians our nothing but a bunch if hypocrites who pick and choose the "sin" that you feel you must fight? All the while turning a blind eye (hell, their not even turning a blind eye, they're flat out ENDORSING and participating, legitimizing and "blessing" sinful activity) because somehow it doesn't seem to offend them as much.
Now, can you please directly address this issue and explain to me why churches (and I'm assuming your church is one of them) seem to be completely cool with divorcees who remarry and are living in a perpetual state of sin, but seem to get so damned worked up about gay marriage even though your churches do not have to participate or accept same?
Is the church Christian or Pauline? Paul wasn't too high on marriage in any form. Women were a little ways down his list as well.
Paul told the Corinthians something along the lines of 'men, if you can't just forget about sex, like I do, get yourself a woman, marry her and do it to her, but don't let her speak in church.'
**Thought I posted this a couple of hours ago.
Paul told the Corinthians something along the lines of 'men, if you can't just forget about sex, like I do, get yourself a woman, marry her and do it to her, but don't let her speak in church.'
**Thought I posted this a couple of hours ago.
As a Christian Hollywood I hate to admit it, but you are pretty much spot on. I think the biggest problem is that many Christians don't know or associate with gay people. Most everyone knows and loves someone who is divorced and remarried. Once an issue affects someone you care about, it is very easy to show mercy not only to them but to people you don't know who are struggling with the same issue. It's also easy to completely ignore what the Bible teaches because you love them. My parents were both married before they married each other so according to Jesus they are adulterers and therefore living in sin. I also know my mother came from an abusive marriage so does God condemn her for getting out of it? These are questions I don't know the answer to and frankly all I can do is trust in God's mercy.
For most Christians I believe the gay marriage conversation occurs in a vacuum. They don't know or care about anybody who is gay so it's very easy to condemn and call homosexuals out as sinners. I have been guilty of much of that "judgment under the guise of protecting the truth" myself. I hate when I see it in myself and I hate when I see it in other Christians. One of the other things Jesus said was, "with the measure you use it will be measured unto you." I think that is a relevant teaching with everything that is going on right now.
Paul describes men and women performing acts "against nature." Now that we know most homosexuals are born, not made, what is unnatural about homosexuality? Your God apparently made a few gays in several species. I understand no offspring result from the union, but I'd wager there are heterosexuals on this board who will enjoy sexual relations with their spouse tonight with no intention of producing offspring. (And there are people on the board who would probably condemn them for doing it just to be doing it.)
Would it not be "unnatural" for a man who is a born homosexual to have sex with a heterosexual woman? All religions condemn that which is different until they learn better. Christianity is finally learning about gays. All religions seek to explain the unexplainable. When a reasonable explanation comes along, religion moves on. Except for the strictest of fundamentalists, religion will now move on from homosexuality.
And, nope, I'm not jaded. Unless that's a codeword for a person who is not buying what the church is selling?
JV, I don't think anyone will call you a bigot because the church will slowly back away from this anti-gay stance which was doomed as soon as genetic studies began to show gays were not willfully disobeying God -- they were just born that way. No one goes to the stake anymore for believing the Earth is not the center of the universe.
Hopefully, whatever church you belong to will someday welcome gays and their families to be active and productive members of your church family. If not, well, people do change churches for reasons like that, or stop going entirely. I would never counsel you to quit your church, JV. It's a personal decision, and one you have to make on your own.
My church accepted a gay couple as members yesterday. I was a little surprised because I don't go to a new age/hippie type place. I go to a pretty old church with a a really old congregation. I think most people consider me a youth even though I'm 32.
Yes I labeled the entire group of people who are science-deniers because of their religious beliefs as people the US could do without in a global marketplace. I took a lot of pride from being the first nation on the moon and the medical advancements we gained as collateral benefits. I enjoyed living in the country which was known around the world as the greatest innovator and problem-solver the world could count on in a crunch.
Any group that denigrates science as the enemy of humanity on a regular basis because their pastor tells them to are a danger to the nation. Looks like I just said it again.
The US is still the greatest country on the planet, imo, but I don't feel the pride we all felt 50 years ago. If you weren't alive then, I can't explain it.
Too many questions for me to field. I'll try to answer as I have time.
Aggiesboy, most pedophiles will tell you they were born that way. Does this validate their behavior? Many liars and kleptomaniacs say the same thing.
Aggiesboy, most pedophiles will tell you they were born that way. Does this validate their behavior? Many liars and kleptomaniacs say the same thing.
While no expert, I believe pedos may be born with the predisposition for what it is they like sexually. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm sure research exists. However, the simple & easy explanation as to why pedophilia (or kleptomania, beastiality, etc) is different than homosexuality...is consent with homosexuality versus the harm (often terrible) the other does to a non-consenting person (or animal, if you're going to bring in beastiality.)
Last edited:
My response is we all are born with what I would call a sin nature. We all are born with certain inclinations that may not be morally or at the least socially acceptable. Being born with a disposition does not mean that particular bent towards abnormal behavior is acceptable.
For instance, I was born with an abnormal sense of pride. This does not mean acting out in arrogance or treating people as inferior is acceptable. (On second thought, maybe there is a clause somewhere that I can treat Sooners as inferiors.)
From my perspective it is our sin nature that we are born with that separates us from God. In fact, it is what condemns each and every one of us.
For instance, I was born with an abnormal sense of pride. This does not mean acting out in arrogance or treating people as inferior is acceptable. (On second thought, maybe there is a clause somewhere that I can treat Sooners as inferiors.)
From my perspective it is our sin nature that we are born with that separates us from God. In fact, it is what condemns each and every one of us.
Last edited:
