Americans are leaving religion at breakneck speed
- Thread starter murox
- Start date
Yep foretold in the bible of a great falling away except for those who don't believe in God and they are fools. That I'm too smart to believe is God is comical as it is sad. What does that get you when U find out you were wrong, lost for eternity. Lose everything because of foolish pride. Its not about religion. Nobody needs religion. People need a relationship with God which is made possible by The blood of our savior Jesus Christ. Well how can I know God and what he wants. He talks to us in his word The Bible. If you don't have the faith God will give you that too. Don't use the " I don't go to church because of fake Christians. Ask yourself this, Do you want a bunch of fake Christians to be one big reason you go to Hell . A person chooses Hell. God doesn't put you there. You have a monkey on your back Murox. More like an elephant. The holy spirit has dealt with you and your conscience is not giving in. Why it bothers you so much that you can't handle the Lord is dealing with you. Your escape is Americans leaving religion at breakneck speed. Thank goodness you say. Brother God is going no where. Because of his wonderful Grace he won't give up on you because he loves you. You are a good member of this board Murox.
Yet you'll vote for a guy who is pandering to the most extreme religious among us and who is nominating and supporting top level politicians who claim their political actions are based on their beliefs in a fairytale.
When church leaders embrace Trump, they abandon the teachings of Christ. I suppose such open, blatant hypocrisy is more than many can bear.
I don't think the number of unbelievers is actually rising.
I think people are just being honest with pollsters now that the cultural pressure of "faith" is near zero, even in the South.
You call it a fairytale, the rest of us call it #winning. The leadership of America has returned to being faithful servant leaders. It's quite amazing really.
So are you saying they would be embracing the teachings of Christ if they voted for Hillary?When church leaders embrace Trump, they abandon the teachings of Christ. I suppose such open, blatant hypocrisy is more than many can bear.
He's actually trying to keep the most extreme religious among us out of the country. You're the one advocating their acceptance into the country. Trump fvcks porn stars and grabs celebrities by the pussy. He's not religious in the least, but he understands how politics works and has to pander to the religious right. I couldn't care less. He cut my taxes and saved me about $25k a year. The economy is roaring. He understands that not all cultures are equal and is actively trying to keep people from shithole countries with shithole values out of our country.
The best president in my lifetime.
I am not sure why that would be a good thing but I guess we will have to disagree about that. I will say that although the numbers may bring a smile to your face don't count Christianity out just yet. The US continues to grow and much of the growth in our population is Latino. Guess what? Many of them are Christians. Most of those who are coming here are Christians. My church has at one time or another be filled with people from India, China, Philippines , The Congo, Ghana and Brazil to name a few. The national church I am part of has experienced 27 consecutive years of growth in adherents. The Fellowship is 54 percent under the age of 35 and more than 42 percent ethnic minority. Worldwide growth is amazing. For example in 1900, there were approximately 10 million Christians in Africa. By 2000, there were 360 million. By 2025, conservative estimates see that number rising to 633 million. Those same estimates put the number of Christians in Latin America in 2025 at 640 million and in Asia at 460 million.
Yes, by selecting Pence as the VP.
Wrong. And this is important: cheeto didn't say he was grabbing celebrities by the pussy. He wouldn't do that, because he knows celebrities have the voice, the financial means, and the power to be able to hold him accountable for that.
He said he was grabbing random women by the pussy, not celebrities. And I believe him. Why? Because he knows he can get away with it to those without power - those random women who don't have the fame, money, or power to be able to hold him accountable without being accused of fabricating things for financial gain, without being hit with a counter-suit, etc. Just ask Sheena Monnin.
Shithole values like showing your pussy to a camera for money, right? Oh, I guess that is excluded if you're willing to fvck him for money.
In that case, lets hope you don't live much longer, or else we are in for a new national anthem soon.
Well this is awkward.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22...-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/
http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22...-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/
A choice between Hillary and Trump wasn't really a choice.....BUT, as terrible as it was, most Americans made the right choice.
Last edited:
Christians are too pray for their leaders. Pray they honestly have a relationship with God. A good Christian president would never make a decision without praying about it first. I would say Jimmy Carter but no one knows another man's heart but I have confidence he is a true believer. He not along ago was still teaching Sunday school in the same church his dad taught. Would have loved to have went to his class.
Nice try, but I'm pretty sure he's referring to Sharia Law and, oh yeah, cutting one's head off for not worshipping their God.
Even this board’s openly atheist posters can’t agree in a thread about diminishing religion trends.
Someone wake up GK. Time to add his political ideology schtick to the fray.
Someone wake up GK. Time to add his political ideology schtick to the fray.
When church leaders embrace Trump, they abandon the teachings of Christ. I suppose such open, blatant hypocrisy is more than many can bear.
So, you think they would have been following Christ's teachings if they had voted for Hills?
Let’s not forget the religion of liberalism has far more useful idiot followers than any traditional Christian religion
My comment was about ministers endorsing Trump.....some calling him a man of God and all kinds of stupid nonsense. There's even a book how God made Trump president. Guess He figured we needed a 70-year-old, pathological-lying, egomaniac sporting an orange spray tan and bleach blonde hair. That God sure does have a sense of humor.
The Chicago Tribune couldn't bring themselves to endorse either Hillary or Trump. That was probably the best position as neither of them were worthy of "endorsement".
I am not a fan of the church "endorsing" any politician. That being said, I'd be interested in hearing Keep's take on the issue.
Even this board’s openly atheist posters can’t agree in a thread about diminishing religion trends.
Someone wake up GK. Time to add his political ideology schtick to the fray.
“Well, ain’t it a small world, spiritually speaking. Pete and Delmar just been baptized and saved. I guess I’m the only one that remains unaffiliated.”
Even this board’s openly atheist posters can’t agree in a thread about diminishing religion trends.
Someone wake up GK. Time to add his political ideology schtick to the fray.
In all seriousness though, I’ve witnessed much more disagreement between the openly Christian posters of the board than I have the openly atheist.
I don’t think we can talk about whether Christianity is diminishing without mentioning how it grew. Christianity was pretty much confined, due to the politics of Europe in the 16th century, to Catholicism. Well...there was that major split with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation I suppose. But when Europe hit the Caribbean islands, Mexico, and Central and South America, they did so under the authority of kings whose justification for the brutality and slaughter was the spread of Christianity. These natives were read the Requerimiento which was basically a Spanish Monarchy declaration that it was God’s will that the natives be subjugated to Spain and convert to Christianity. If they refused they were slaughtered. If they accepted they became slaves that worked the mines, farmed the land, and basically became the labor force for the profit of Christians.
The Aztecs of Mexico and the Incas of South America presided over empires that had land masses and population bases that far exceeded anything found in countries of Europe. These Natives weren’t Christians. They had thousands of Gods that they worshipped throughout the city states that spread out through the land. Christianity was a minority. This doesn’t even take into account what was going on with religion in China and India. This doesn’t take into account the Muslim population in Europe that countless wars had been fought over for centuries. Spain initially denied Columbus funding for his expedition because they were in the middle of their Reconquista, which was expelling the Moors (Muslims) from their country after it had ruled for centuries. They expelled the Jews under the Requonquista as well.
So my point is simple. We’re discusing this minute change in polling data of people falling away from Christianity and losing sight of the big picture. Christianity, if not for guns, steel, and an immunity to European disease wouldn’t even be the dominant religion in the world. Christianity numbers around 2.2 billion people in the world. That’s only about 32% of the world population. That means nearly 70% of the world population is non Christian. So...there’s a shift of polling data showing a small change in those who profess Christianity. But in the grand scheme Christianity is just one of many religions that make up the world population. From a European, white centric point of view we might believe it the true religion, but that’s a minority thought as well.
Are you including Greed in your observation? If so, that is a highly skewed assessment.
You are so off point that it made me spit out my coffee. As you must know the church started in the first century in Jerusalem not the middle ages in Rome. The church grew by leaps and bounds for the first few centuries without the use of any weapons.As a matter of record the first 300 years it grew dispite sever persecution. I suggest you read the writings of Eusebius the first historian of the church or for an easier read Foxxs Book of Martyrs. The church slowed growth as it entered the Dark Ages and in that same time frame The Islamic hordes began to invade and wipe out the existing church in North Africa and other places throughout the Mediterranean. Later they would invade Europe and subdue whole nations.
The military operations we know as the crusades themselves was started by the pope Urban II.
But it should be noted that no single thing in history can stand alone, and the crusades was not just a flimsy idea from a power-hungry pope or a pack of bloodthirsty knights. At the beginning of the crusades the muslim world had spread from its birthplace throughout a considerable portion of north Africa and Spain, mostly by military force.
Around the 11th century the Seljun Turks conquered most of the Byzantine Empire, leaving it with little more than present day Greece. The emperor of Constantinople therefore sent out a cry for help. The crusaders was the response, and therefore became the front in the war with the Muslim world.
Disclaimer: this is not a defense of any atrocities committed by either side (any debate on that would be fruitless), but any historical event should be seen in context with the things and times around it.
This of course brings us to the Americas where under the guise of Christianity land was forcefully taken as you point out. My point is that most believers worldwide since the inception of the church are alive today and have made a decision to be a follower of Christ without the use of guns or swords, so your point is not valid. If you want to say the Christianity has it's share of wrongs then that is fair. But to suggest that the 2 billion followers of Christ today are followers because of the sword is just wrong.Finally you say that Christianity is a white religion but most of the believers in the world today are not white
Well...there was Fever’s interpretation of Christianity as well. But your point is well taken.
I do believe if you use history as a judge my point is valid. As I mentioned there was a major disagreement with the Reformation, but when Christianity hit America the church splintered quite a bit. William Penn, Roger Williams, George Fox, and countless others had major disagreements that led to splintering in the church. There are over 30,000 Christian denominations worldwide today, so somebody is disagreeing.
Ignoring for a moment gk's incredibly one sided Jared Diamond view of the spread of Christianity, to answer the question above about the role of politics and the pulpit. My personal view is churches should never, ever, ever endorse candidates or parties as such, but can and should speak to particular issues going on within the political realm, as long as they are big picture things. Churches should not get involved in denouncing esoteric questions around minute economic policy or similar like discussions.
The role of the Church and State is wholly separate, one ruling with the power of the sword, the other with the power of the spirit.
The role of the Church and State is wholly separate, one ruling with the power of the sword, the other with the power of the spirit.
The whole first part of your historical jog neither addresses anything I said, nor did I even mention it. I appreciate the information though, because you’re knowledgeable about the history of the church in Europe and you expressed yourself well. But again...my point was that Christianity is one of a multitude of belief systems worldwide and it isn’t near a consensus and never has been. Again nearly 70% of the world population is non Christian. That can’t be argued. It’s a fact.
The only point of contention is whether the spread of Christianity is a result of “guns, steel, and immunity to European disease.” That was obviously addressing Christianity in America and I stand by that. There were by some estimates over 100 million people in America pre contact. None were Christians. Within a hundred years after Columbus, Christianity was the dominant religion. Of course guns, steel, and disease was the major factor. And if you believe that the wars in Europe and the conquering of America by Christians isn’t responsible for today’s Christian population being exposed to Christianity, thus arriving at their “(non)sword” reached piety...well...we’ll just have to disagree.
If history is written by the victors, then the religion of the victors determine what they believe. Of course people are arriving at Christianity without being forced today. But without the earlier victories and triumphs of Christianity, Christian people today would be exposed to an entirely different religious indoctrination.
And as far as those coffee stain...white vinegar and warm water.
Jared Diamond’s view was that luck of geography was the major influence on the economics of society. That obviously influences religion because the preferred geographies were that of Christians, but Diamond really wasn’t making that point. My posts are predominately influenced by two books...Conquest: The Fall of Montezuma, Cortes, and Old Mexico by Hugh Thomas and The Last Days of the Incas by Kim Mac Quarrie.
https://books.google.com/books/abou...dkC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
https://books.google.com/books/abou...DQC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
These are both historical accounts and fairly unbiased as far as favoring one side or the other. But I did paraphrase Diamond’s, Guns, Germs, and Steel.
And I agree...the church should never endorse a candidate. Separation of church and state is a friend of the church.
I posted this before - but here's a good quick Sam Harris podcast with Dr. Bart Erhman - considered to be one of the world's experts on the early development of Christianity. Was really interesting to me.
https://samharris.org/podcasts/what-is-christianity/
As an aside, there has been some fantastic discussion from some "intellectuals" on twitter and in long form conversations about truth/consciousness/morality between Sam Harris (atheist), Ben Shapiro (conservative orthodox jew), Jordan Peterson (not sure, but think he's probably a Christian), and Nassim Taleb (I think he's greek orthodox). Can find their discussion/debates/essays out there on the web. Kind of heavy stuff, but if I'm in the right mood I really enjoy it.
https://jordanbpeterson.com/philoso...n-notes-on-the-sam-harris-discussions-part-i/
Last edited:
We may have talked about this before, but does your church fly the American flag? Churches that do bug the shit out of me.
Mine does not.
Also I love needing evangelicals for putting up that white flag with the purple Union that they call the Protestant flag. Almost none of them know that the flag was invented by a socialist during the early part of the 20th century.
What would be the issue with a church flying a flag? Does it muddy the church/state separation waters?
I'm not speaking for Keep, but maybe he's being consistent with his response to me...
"The role of the Church and State is wholly separate, one ruling with the power of the sword, the other with the power of the spirit."
The Christian Church is not a national church, so to have the flag of the USA in the sanctuary not only mixes kingdoms, but it disinvites non-Americans.
