Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
My parents lived in the same house for 40 years, my entire childhood was there. My grandparents (both sets) lived in their house for 50 years. I can't comprehend how Americans keep moving for jobs or to upgrade or to get to a better school district. Surely you want some permanence? Get to know your neighbors?

Edit yes I did move around in my twenties, but that stopped at 30.

Remember people marry later if at all so you break the cohort developments of growing up and adulting.

I helped lead my local little league. It’s different than it used to be - it’s pretty typical to have tball parents in their 40s. A group of parents from 20s to 50s aren’t going to hang out, they don’t relate. I’m a late genx, most of my friends parents were in their 30s when I was a little leaguer.

The demise of old line churches is similar. We did CYO basketball in the same parish my wife did. It’s the last of what was 8-10 catholic parishes in my city. And unlike in my youth where you had good mix multigenerational parishioners… the parish survives based on the beneficence of 5-10 people in their late 60s and 70s, with few people rising to behind them. Mainline Protestant parishes are similar. The only growth in religious communities are independent Baptists, which are great but integrate into the broader community differently, because each church mostly stands alone and isn’t part of a bigger system.

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.

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

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

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!

loading story #48876178
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.”

> 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.

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 ;)

> 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”?

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.

> 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?

It’s not like people don’t know the references, they just don’t want to engage in a public argument with you.

Old Testament: Lev 18:22, Gen 19:1-7, Judges 19:22-23, Jude 7:7

New Testament: 1 Cor 6:9, Romans 1:26-27

And your accusation about Hypocrisy in eating pork etc:

Laws of Moses superseded: Gal 3:23-25, Romans 10:4, Col 2:14, Col 2:16-17, Romans 6:14-15

by New Testament principles: Acts 15:28,29 and Acts 10:9-16

And what about this?

Luke 6:34–35 - And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

I hear a lot of anti gay preaching but no preaching against charging interest. Cafeteria Christianity indeed.

It is also super weird to hear Christians say that the Old Testament is superseded but then keep quoting it when it’s convenient.

If you lend without expecting repayment, it’s charity. Here he encourages people to lend money to people who cannot pay them back (ie to poor people to clear their debt) and he will personally pay you back. Luke 14:12-14, Matt 25:34-46; the latter explains someone’s obligation to help someone in dire need.

The law against charging interest was under Moses’ law so it was abolished along with the rest when Jesus died. Useful principles added, covering not interest specifically, but condemning greed (which is foundational to late stage capitalism…); 1 Tim 6:10, Matt 6:24

Indeed. Lending without expecting any repayment would not be lending. It would be giving. This could be interpreted as a call to generosity. Plain reading seems to rule out interest though. (The more nuanced reading seems to rule out lending at all.)

There are plenty of other examples of modern Christians picking and choosing though. Starting with ignoring the above call to charity (if we read it that way). There are many calls to give freely, yet most modern Christian’s are content with pretty minor giving overall. Or we could talk about how “turn the other cheek” aligns with the distinct non-pacifism that permeates modern Christianity. Or we could talk about taking oaths, divorce, head coverings by women in church, embrace of community property. Etc.

Christian scholars regularly debate how to interpret portions of the Bible. I’m not sure what they are doing if it’s clear and easy to adhere to.

{"deleted":true,"id":48902990,"parent":48880349,"time":1784010704,"type":"comment"}
> 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?

You seem to be conflating Abrahamic religions.
I’m curious what you mean by this. Leviticus is specifically included in the Christian Bible.
Yes, the Jewish Bible is included in the Christian Bible, to use common parlance. Have you asked Christian scholars why, or have you perhaps just insisted on some naive explanation of your own?
Two of these snarky, hand-wavey responses in a row is sufficient to establish that you have nothing valuable to add here. Take care
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
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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

I read it as a take encouraging me to render aid to anyone in a dire emergency regardless of their background.
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).
I can love you and still disagree with the things you do and not endorse them. These are not in conflict.
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.

You’re free to believe whatever it is you like - that’s your belief system. I didn’t intend to start a theological debate ultimately. Only highlight as a counterpoint to the GP that going to church in the modern era really feels like you have to pick one side or another and that it’s simply an extension of politics rather than an higher-order thing.
My point here is that all Christians are “cafeteria Christians”. They all pick and choose the pieces they agree with and want to follow. They discard the inconvenient stuff as no longer relevant and claim the things that they believe are supported by the scripture.

So much of Christian belief is not in the bible no matter what particular sect you are a part of. I remember when those “Left Behind” book’s came out and I found out many of my friends believed in a physical rapture where those “saved” would literally disappear from the Earth. I had no idea this was even a thing because it’s not something my church taught and it’s not in the bible.

Most (all?) other groups have their own rules and beliefs that are not in the bible. I’m not sure it’s possible to be fully faithful to the Bible because it’s not entirely self consistent. Also the books of the bible themselves were chosen from many candidate texts. It’s not as if Jesus left a bibliography.

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?
"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.)
> 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.

Not sure how to feel about your implication that unmarried people are neither grown up nor adults.
loading story #48875832
loading story #48875184
I don't know where you are, but at least where I am (and from what I remember, it's been a while since I've felt welcome in a place of worship) the church is oftentimes the only place you can find young families. I was raised and mostly interact with Lutherans though, so maybe it's different for other denominations
loading story #48874624
loading story #48874578
loading story #48875493
loading story #48875618
loading story #48893101
loading story #48875330
loading story #48874691