• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

I can only assume you are trolling me at this point, but I’ll make one last post on the matter. Christianity is under attack (or, if you prefer, threatened) by post-modernism insofar as the former claims a specific way of life is the truth while the latter posits that there is no truth, only meta-narratives.

You appear to dismiss the distinction as seemingly irrelevant, but my contention is the distinction makes your position untenable. If Christianity is under attack, then the onus is on those that seek to attack Christianity to cease such attacks and let Christianity exist as all other religions under the 1st Am. But if Christianity is merely threatened by an evolving society that is moving forward from ancient ideas on how life should be lived based on the Bible and Scripture teachings, then the onus is on Christianity to find a place in society that doesn't turn off a large minority of younger generations.
 
I'm more concerned about post-modernism. What is it, and should we be afraid?
 
What happened at Iowa is very different than what you’ve been describing. And even then, that’s not at attack on individual belief just public support for its practice. And it treats all religions equally.
 
I'm more concerned about post-modernism. What is it, and should we be afraid?

It really is a meaningless phrase meant to instill fear into OWGs, but my understanding is it essentially is a philosophical ideology that rejects traditional tenets of Western Civilization and can be boiled down to “there is no truth, truth is a construct,” which is why it doesn’t square well with a religion that professes truth is a Demi-god.
 
The University of Iowa banned student religious groups from campus if they required their leaders to affirm a statement of faith because the University concluded that having faith requirements for leaders constituted discrimination on the basis of religion and dis-served the goal of diversity. Is that an “attack” on religion according to your terminology? Or is that simply the necessary by-product of an “evolving society?”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...iowa-is-purging-religious-student-groups/amp/

I submit the terminology is ancillary to the bigger question. Yes, an “attack” is more obviously unconstitutional insofar as an “attack” implies hostility toward religion, but a “threat” to religious freedom is no less unconstitutional despite the fact it is accomplished by means of a noble motivation. In fact, a” threat” can be more dangerous than an “attack” because it appears in sheep’s clothing.

The story begins last fall, when a student complained against the UI chapter of Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC). BLinC had told the student—a gay man—that he was not eligible to serve in a leadership position if he did not affirm the group’s commitment to Christian teaching on marriage. After receiving the complaint, UI deregistered BLinC for violating University nondiscrimination policies.
 
It really is a meaningless phrase meant to instill fear into OWGs, but my understanding is it essentially is a philosophical ideology that rejects traditional tenets of Western Civilization and can be boiled down to “there is no truth, truth is a construct,” which is why it doesn’t square well with a religion that professes truth is a Demi-god.
But wait, that's what Modernism was. Make it New!
 
The University of Iowa banned student religious groups from campus if they required their leaders to affirm a statement of faith because the University concluded that having faith requirements for leaders constituted discrimination on the basis of religion and dis-served the goal of diversity. Is that an “attack” on religion according to your terminology? Or is that simply the necessary by-product of an “evolving society?”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...iowa-is-purging-religious-student-groups/amp/

I submit the terminology is ancillary to the bigger question. Yes, an “attack” is more obviously unconstitutional insofar as an “attack” implies hostility toward religion, but a “threat” to religious freedom is no less unconstitutional despite the fact it is accomplished by means of a noble motivation. In fact, a” threat” can be more dangerous than an “attack” because it appears in sheep’s clothing.

No. Refusing to tolerate intolerance isn’t an attack on religion.
 
Why is the coerced statement on marriage essential to the Business Leaders in Christ? This is another example of Christianity destroying itself from within.
 
Post-modern thought is incompatible with Christianity insofar as Christianity claims that Jesus is “the” way, “the” truth, and “the” light. Post-modern thought, whether known as such or not, is being taught to our children in our public schools, reflected in the TV shows we watch, assumed in the news articles we read, etc. Thus, Christianity, among other religious views, is under attack. I don�t think that post-modern thought targets Christianity, but that doesn�t make the threat any less real.

Junebug, I’m reading your posts. You specifically singled out Christianity here.

Either way, I don’t see how “post-modern thought” is responsible for a university wanting clubs it supports to be open to students who want to join.
 
Last edited:
how weak is Religion if it can't answer a challenge to dogma brought on by Post-Modernism
 
No, but really, what is it.

It is a philosophy wherein “anything goes” ..normal bonds of reason and rationale are discarded and the social fabric of a society is strained as the members cannot agree even on basic truths.

Nihilism is the great enemy of modernity
 
Do better Ph.

Do better Junebug. If you asked people from other religions if they felt more attacked by post-modernism or Christians, they would definitely say Christians.
 
The university created a public forum. There is no distinction between “public support” and “individual belief.”

As for your second point, why don’t you read my posts? I have never claimed Christianity is being singled out among religions. In any event, the university most certainly did not treat all religions equally. It only banned those that imposed faith requirements on its leaders. If a religious group either didn’t have a statement of faith or didn’t require its leaders to adhere to it, they weren’t banned.

You do understand how this relates to my point about post-modernism, yes? You’ve entered Ph troll mode in the last few posts. I’m happy to address a serious question, but I’m not going to respond if you are trying to score points.

No it banned all student groups that imposed discriminatory requirements on its leadership. The fact that only religious groups ended up being banned is telling, but it’s not an attack on religion.

Would you be ok with Phi Betta Kappa requiring all of its members to sign a statement affirming the theory of evolution and renouncing young earth theory?
 
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

Condemning human existence is ultimately at the bottom of the modern Enviro-Marxist.

I call them Carbonistas. Individuals who espouse Evolution except when it comes to human beings. Human beings are the problem. As the founder of Greenpeace put it “these enviro-alarmists are actually anti-human”

Look at how quickly they will surrender to A-I..such is the loathe carried for the human condition
 
Maybe if you keep repeating your vague “post modern thought is a threat” you’ll convince someone junebug. Makes me wonder whether you even believe that argument, particularly since you glossed over the threat the Religious Right has had to the overall gospel message.

Seems like Christianity itself was founded by new lines of thought challenging the stodgy old guard and gaining followers who were underserved by their existing messages.
 
Hi, I’m an atheist and think organized religion is bad and should be abolished. AMA!

If I could, I would attack religion on all fronts, but as an atheist in the deep south I am so under attack my self that I really just play defense or deny my beliefs.

Based on the descriptions here I’m a semi-nihilist. I think there are probably true things out there but our ability to know them is limited by things like perception, bias, instrumentation and measurement errors. This is really a Bayesian perspective on reality, not nihilism, but in practice I guess they are similar.
 
Back
Top