Christianity has shifted from its concentration in Europe and America to spread to Asia and Africa according to the Pew Research Center. It used to be that 93% of Christians could be found in Europe (66.3%) and the Americas (27.1%) Now, that 93% is split up among the four corners of the world: 37% Americas, 26% Europe, 24% Subsaharan Africa, and 13% Asia Pacific. Now whereever a Christian may travel, they can visit a church. And those who claimed that the world is becoming secular are so wrong.
Yes, missionaries have made sure to cleanse areas of the world so that they may build churches. Unfortunately, genocides have resulted in making sure Christians may visit those churches when they travel.
Ooo, there's that terrific grasp of history and global events rearing again!
I do like you!
A Troubled Man: We all know that you are indeed troubled. Also we al know just how negative you can be. Now you've chosen to attack Missionaries and the good works they perform.
You seem to get a kick out of attacking anyone and everyone simply because you feel like it, yet in your years with Hub Pages, you have chosen not to write on a single subject, only to choose to tear down others.
Please leave us alone and stop pestering us with all of your negativity, we don't need it nor do we ask you for it.
Thanks for starting off your post with personal insults, is that what Jesus would have done?
Don't you mean the mass murders and genocides they've performed?
Or, in the case of missionaries, the facts surrounding the atrocities they committed in the name of Jesus.
That's odd, we are saying the same thing about Christianity, yet Christians persist regardless of the fact we don't need it nor do we ask them for it.
Funny how that works, eh Dave?
That's very similar to what Jones said before moving his sheep to Guyana! "Leave us alone!"
Oh don't worry about Troubled Man, Dave. He has his own hate to deal with just like all the other anti-religious. His is a very minor persecution and inconsequential. Don't forget it's only a forum.
Don't worry, there's plenty of room for both of you!
Yes, it is evident we "anti-religious" folks are forced to deal with hatred, that is true.
There have been those - and continues today - who try to profit from Christianity. Those who do this take advantage of Christians and Christianity. It is human greed. This element will never cease. And there have been those who murdered in Christ's name. Those who did it, are not Christians. I look forward to the expansion of Christianity.
Christianity has evolved over the two millennia. Christians today are the most giving, charitable , accepting and tolerant people.
Yes, they call themselves Christians.
No, it is Christianity that drives Christians to do bad things.
Yes, it will as Christianity disappears into myth where it belongs.
Yes, they were Christians, despite your denial to the contrary.
That's too bad considering it's on the decline headed for obscurity.
That is entirely false.
So you all must be calling the muslims & hindus christians since you are saying- christians did the killing- so many lies,lies,lies, You don't know about nothing- The real Christians spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ are being killed just because the message of Jesus Christ. They don't want the people hearing it, in fact most people in these countries once told the truth of Jesus Christ want what God has offered through Jesus- Salvation. If you all kept up with the persecution news you'd see the truth.
Nigeria, Egypt, Iraq Claim Majority of Christian Martyrs in 2011
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/religion … -2011.html
http://aclj.org/iran/judgment-day-will- … ian-martyr
WORLDWIDE PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS BY MUSLIMS AND HINDUS INTENSIFIES
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modu … yYcjFwS21k
Radical Muslims Kill 29 Christians This Week In Nigeria
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne … in-nigeria
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/ … -crunching
Let's not be of the bunch calling evil- Good & good- evil! The word of God is so clear!!
We do live in a secular world. "Americans without affiliation comprise the only religious group growing in all 50 states."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/lo … z1j5nqAYdV
Your group uses a mathematical model to make projections. Pew is an actual study using polls. Pew is more accurate. However, it does go to show that the secular do have places that they can live and be comfortable if the mathematical models are right.
The American Religious Identification Survey by Trinity College shows that the proportion of religiously unaffiliated (which includes atheists and agnostics) rose in every state over the last 20 years.
http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/Amer … t_2008.pdf
(Major groups like Protestants and Catholics often declined.)
Thank you for the information. It does support that Christianity is becoming more global instead of being confined to Europe and the Americas.
Yeah probably, but it also indicates that as societies become wealthier and more educated, they become less religious in general. Religion thrives in backward, underdeveloped cultures (like much of Africa or South Asia today, or Europe 1000 years ago).
And what you just said shows what an anomaly the growth of Christianity has been in the Americas, Africa and Asia in the last ten years. Those regions have improved and Christianity still spread. Thank you.
Religion is wishful thinking, for there is no concept so bleak as to live in the now. We think that living in the past, is the way to define ourselve's. We do not like living in the now, because it seems lonely. It's not. It's a representation of the whole and we only see it in parts, called moments.
I'm not sure I follow. Christianity has declined in the Americas. And while Africa and Asia have (I guess) sort of improved in recent years, it is VERY patchy. In fact, take out India and China and much of the economic growth of the third world in the last few decades disappears altogether.
And anyway, even a doubling of per capita income from $1000 to $2000 does not immediately produce a modernized culture. Just take a look at the plight of women across the 3rd world, where they are often treated as property or subhuman idiots.
It takes many generations for a society to become equitable, rational and forward-thinking. It took Europe several hundred years.
Your reference was to the United States, the pew poll included all the Americas and it showed that Christianity has increased in the Americas. You claim that as societies become more wealthy and educated that they become less religious. The pew poll shows an increase in Christianity in Africa and Asia. Those regions may not have grown to the level of wealth and education that you would appreciate but to objective measures they have grown and Christianity has flourished with it. You wish to deny the improvements in Africa and Asia so that you can deny the growth of Christianity. Your antagonism toward a religion shouldn't make you disdain the economic achievements of those people. Especially as those achievements were in the face of much hardship.
Christianity has certainly declined in the US and Canada. As for Latin America, perhaps it has increased by a certain measure (I would have to see that study). But meanwhile same sex partnerships are now legal in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and elsewhere, and prostitution is legal in almost all of Latin America. In addition to other very non-Christian developments.
It is not "my appreciation" for it. Yes, many countries have gotten richer. But I reiterate, a move from $1000 income per year to $2000 is a significant increase, a 100% growth rate, but that person is still poor. And again, the economic growth is unfortunately patchy--some countries have grown very quickly, some not at all, and some have even shrunk.
I remember reading a study saying that Africa had overall no real economic growth from the 1960s to the late 1990s/ early 2000s.
"You wish to deny the improvements in Africa and Asia so that you can deny the growth of Christianity."
You can cast aspersions on me if you want, but the facts are facts.
Again, according to the pew poll which is what I sighted at the beginning, the total in the Americas increased so any declines in North America were offset in the rest of the Americas. That is a fact.
For Asia and Africa, an increase from $1000 to $2000 is poor to you but it is relative. In those economies that is a significant increase, you fail to appreciate this. Christianity has grown in those regions, that is fact 2.
According to the World Bank World Development Indicators, the Africa's average growth rate was nearly 5% in 2010 vs a growth rate of 3.1% in 2009; these rates are better than some countries in the developed world including the US. Christianity has grown in this environment. That is fact 3.
It is not an aspersion. The facts underline your denial.
You completely ignored my point about prostitution and gay marriage in Latin America. People may call themselves "Christian." That does not mean they actually live and practice a Christian life.
70% of Americans call themselves "Christian" when asked by a pollster. Yet 95% of Americans have sex before marriage and only 30 to 40% attend church regularly.
I know that Christianity has grown in those regions. You don't have to keep repeating that.
The question is if significant advancement has occurred. But not just material wealth. I said from the beginning we must see cultural advancement as well. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is a filthy rich country. But it has the backward, violent, viciously sexist culture of a medieval kingdom.
I do appreciate the increase from $1000 to $2000. It is very good for them. It does not qualify as a truly wealthy population, just because it feels better for them.
If you give a child $1, he will be happy. Next day, give him $5. Will he be even happier? You bet! Is he rich? Truly rich by an objective standard? No.
You cannot look at growth rates year to year. They fluctuate far too much (especially in poor countries because the economies are so small). Only the media is concerned with growth rates year over year, for immediate attention-grabbing value. Serious analysts look at trends over time. That is where the real trends are found. See my comment below on Africa.
Do you have a link to this Pew poll you keep citing?
Prostitution and gay marriage or relationships existed before Christianity and it will continue to co-exist with Christianity, those things are independent.
You are terribly confused. Being a Christian has nothing to do with being a virgin before marriage and church attendance, those are things one strives to do but they are not excommunicated if they fail to do those things.
As for Saudi Arabia, the sexist culture may have predated the religion. Buddhism doesn't treat women less equally and yet you will still find women in Buddhist countries clinging to their traditional gender roles and they are fine with it.
As I said before, wealth is relative. An increase of $1000 a month is nothing to you. But it is a 100% increase in lifestyle. By your claim that should have put people off Christianity but it hasn't. There are many people in the United States that earn very healthy salaries and they are staunch Christians. The United States is an anomaly in that way. We as a country are much wealthier than the Europeans, even now with our economic problems. And yet a strong majority of the population count themselves as Christian much more so than the Europeans.
The trend in Africa for the past ten years have been up. By your claim Christianity should be declining, it hasn't.
Again you seculars can claim that the world will grow less religious, you will be disproven time and again.
Just do a google on Christianity and pew polls.
Of course those "sinful" things existed before and during Christianity. But they were not accepted by the population. They were outlawed or even persecuted. Can you imagine the Puritans of Massachusetts giving homosexual couples the right to marry? I don't think so, lol.
I know Christians are not "excommunicated" for doing those things (duh). It all represents a less Christian worldview and lifestyle, and a more secular one. When people took Christianity more seriously (as in the 1950s) they attended church more often and considered religion much more important in their lives.
It is not black and white as in either Devout Christian, or Militant Atheist. It is a gradual movement over time away from religion among populations.
Of course sexism predated Islam in Saudi Arabia. Just look at the Old Testament, lol. But it has always been tied up with religion, whether Islam or pre-Islamic Arab paganism.
By my claim, Christianity can still grow, or shrink, or do whatever in Africa. Only when Africa achieves significant material wealth and cultural advancement (which it has in some places, and those places tend to be more secular) will you see religion decline significantly.
"An increase of $1000 a month is nothing to you. But it is a 100% increase in lifestyle."
$1000 a month?! Haha! I was talking $1000 per year! If I could take home an extra $1000 per month you're damn right I would feel richer!
Wealth is somewhat relative, but mostly absolute. Because the human body is absolute. We need absolute amounts of food, water, sleep. There is an absolute amount of daylight, producing an absolute amount of usable hours in a day, etc. But wealth does have psychological effects, making it "relative" in some ways.
"And yet a strong majority of the population count themselves as Christian much more so than the Europeans."
Read what I said previously: just because people count themselves as Christian does not mean they actually are. And some European countries are wealthier than the US on a per capita basis. China is the 2nd largest economy in the world. It is very poor on a per capita basis.
And I already told you, you need to look at things OVER TIME. And also, there is an exception to every rule. Utah is a very religious state, but also very wealthy, well-educated and low-crime. So it bucks the trend. But the trend, overall, is that the more religious US states tend to be poorer, less educated and higher-crime than the more secular states. And of course individuals here and there can buck the trends all day.
There are some very rich black people. Good for them. Overall, the trend is that black people tend to be poorer in the US. Etc, etc. etc.
Look, I've done the research, I've looked at dozens of studies. You just keep citing one poll (which is legitimate, but not the whole story), and the rest is your opinion and interpretation. You need to reckon with the wide range of data across history and across countries if you want to say anything conclusive.
You can have the last word if you want.
I've done research too and I'm looking at the world around me. You can explain it away if you like, but religion will be here to stay and will continue to hold sway much to the disappointment of you western seculars. Christianity will also be around. It's been around when things were good and it's been around when things are bad.
The US is the biggest economy with the most people and therefore more complex than any smaller country. If you don't get that, I can't help you.
If Christianity was in decline as you say then there wouldn't be as many as the entire population increases. How else do you define decline?
As far as I know, Christians don't vote for pornography or prostitution or especially abortion. As for the other social issues, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Christians are obeying the the teachings of Christ when they are more forgiving by not stoning adulterers, recognizing that marriages can be mistakes. As for gay marriage, that is something that has been brought to courts for the government to recognize. It's still something of a rarity to perform gay marriage in church.
As for Christians becoming more secular, I would chalk the changes to a modern lifestyle. Churchgoing may be more erratic on the one hand but televangelism seems to supplement. As for the erosion of Christian lifestyle, I would think that is an overinterpretation on your part. There may not be that public piety that you have seen before and it would be very easy to let go of those things that make one Christian. However, if there's one thing that seculars fail to appreciate it is that Christians, latent as that faith may be at times, do hold fast to the faith. Those agnostics and atheists are not the tip but rather the ice floe.
Ok, here's the stat I was thinking of. From the IMF. There was modest growth in Africa in the 1960s (post independence), then about 20 years of economic decline from the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sur … 11610a.htm
So overall, by the late 1990s, a net change of about zero. In other words, it's as if Africa as a whole was in the same place in the late 1990s as it was roughly 30 to 40 years earlier.
Since the late 1990s, things have picked up and gotten much more positive. The spread of African Christianity is tied to that optimism (much like the growth of Christianity in early 19th century United States occurred simultaneously with rapid industrialization and economic growth).
But overall, over long periods of time, and across the world today, the trends are clear: more prosperity is correlated with less religion. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Well, the pew polls just showed you that it was an opinion. Over long periods of time there have been ebbs and flows in religion. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and others have flourished and that too is a fact. If what you said was true, religion should not exist in the US the richest economy for the past 50 years and yet it has stayed strong and become more religiously pluralistic. Seculars have been saying the same thing for the last hundred years and they have been disproven time and again.
Nope. The western world has become progressively less religious over the last 500 years. This is seen in literature, politics, culture, science, etc.
YOUR Pew poll that YOU cited said that Christianity declined in Europe and the US! Hahaha! Come on!
And that is true. It has fallen. And it continues to fall. I wrote a series of hubs on the decline and fall of Christianity, here's the first one:
http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Th … ristianity
I use data from a variety of sources.
"If what you said was true, religion should not exist in the US the richest economy for the past 50 years and yet it has stayed strong and become more religiously pluralistic."
Wrong again. It doesn't have to be a perfect relationship for the trend to be valid. The US is an exception among rich countries in terms of religiosity. However: (1) atheism and agnosticism have increased significantly in the US over the last 20 years, (2) the US has the highest poverty rate of any rich country, (3) thus although the US is very rich as a whole, on a per capita basis, its people are not the wealthiest.
Moreover, among the US states, wealthier states tend to be less religious than poorer states. And all of this is what the facts from sources such as Gallup, Pew and others tell us. Lol.
You site the western world. I said that christianity has become a global religion. I didn't say that Christianity didn't decline in the US and Europe.
You seculars with your wish for the decline and fall of Christianity is almost always stumped and this recent pew poll just proves it. Hellooo! Christianity a global religion. Over 2 billion Christians. The most ever!
Wealth like poverty is relative. What we consider poverty may not be considered poverty elsewhere, even in Europe. On a per capita basis, we do very well as a very large country, which is a distinct achievement considering that you are probably referring to small countries where the economy is simpler and fewer people to share the wealth. So to take your phrase, it doesn't have to be perfect for the trend to be valid. The majority of people in the United States belong to some religion, over 75% of them are Christian. A significant increase in atheism and agnosticism would be impressive if they weren't such small numbers to begin with.
Secular claims are disproven time and again.
"I didn't say that Christianity didn't decline in the US and Europe."
Here you seemed to indicate that:
"... religion should not exist in the US the richest economy for the past 50 years and yet it has stayed strong and become more religiously pluralistic. Seculars have been saying the same thing for the last hundred years and they have been disproven time and again."
I assume the "secular claims" you are referring to were made by western intellectuals referring to western culture.
Please. Modern industrialized democracies like Japan, France, Germany and the UK are hardly small simple economies. No offense, really, but you have a lot to learn on economics. It's not just about a smaller number of people to "share the wealth." I won't go into the whole thing here.
"Christianity a global religion. Over 2 billion Christians. The most ever!"
That's mainly because the human population is bigger than ever! LOL!
Most "Christians," as I keep reiterating, call themselves "Christian" but they do not live a life in line with that tradition. And they vote for things like legalized abortion, divorce, gay marriage, pornography and prostitution. Adultery was a serious punishable crime for centuries in the Christian world. Today, it is totally legal.
"A significant increase in atheism and agnosticism would be impressive if they weren't such small numbers to begin with."
I will end by agreeing with you here. This is your one valid point. But my point is that if you read a little further into these numbers, you see that even people who explicitly refer to themselves as "Catholic" or "Protestant," for instance, are still more secular than they were. They attend church less often, they are less sure of God's existence, they are more tolerant of gays, they read the Bible less often, they are more open to abortion and divorce, etc. These are all documented facts in the polls and surveys I cite.
You have to understand the trend does not require Christianity to evaporate overnight. It is a gradual erosion of Christian lifestyle, beliefs, values, traditions, and the progressive but continuous hollowing out of Christianity in an increasingly secular and humanistic age. The label of Christianity will be with us for a long time. The substantive "religion" that guides lives, however, is disintegrating. Many devout Christians themselves very much agree with this.
Although the atheist and agnostic numbers still remain small in the US, this is like the tip of an iceberg. On the surface, it may seem insignificant. But it is connected to a much deeper and more profound shift away from religion in the broader culture.
Secular claims are ignored time and again. And usually ultimately proven right.
You can have the last word if you want.
That's all folks!
I think the figures you quoted are just made up by someone in the first place. In the second place the same figures can also show that christianity is severely declining in its traditional places which increases the ratio of those outside.
It is probably a made up figure anyway as so many people register as christian when asked but never actually practice or even think about it, unlike those who claim buddhism who do normally both practice and live it.
Those are excellent news, thanks for posting, that supports what i have wrote in my previous post.
That is very true, religion spreads like fire in dry grass in the third world countries, probably because the poor education in those countries, in first world countries these kind of religions are dying, i can give my country as an example, i'm from Portugal and this is a very religious country with specific myths and miracles known world wide as the Miracle of Fátima and the three secrets given to three kids, you can read about this here:
The current reality as described by the church in my country is that there is a "vocation crises" because less guys want to be priests and less people are going to the church, well i call this education, people are opening there eyes, and you can see this tendency all over Europe, more education less religion.
All people i know in my age group don't believe in religions, some may have some kind of belief in a god but i don't know anyone that attends mass or goes to the church frequently, only in weddings and funerals and some other religious celebration.
I don't know any fundies like i see people talking about the America's bible belt, i only know that people like that exists because of Internet, that is not my reality.
So what you are saying is true, but have in mind that the fastest growing belief system is "no religion", this is happening in the first world countries you can read about this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_ … g_religion
Your assumption that poor uneducated countries don't have religion prior to Christianity being adopted is wrong.
Europe is becoming less Christian, whether it's less religious is a different question. We'll see how it turns out in 10 years.
That is a good point, and very obvious, of course there were and still are other religions or belief systems in those countries, but Christianity offers salvation in a very easy way, and the priests that are teaching and spreading Christianity are well trained in doing this, have in mind that the Catholic church is doing this for many centuries, don't you think they are able to convince the poor and uneducated people of Africa or any other poor places?
Well i have show you that the fastest growing group is "no-religion" what do you mean with "Europe is becoming less Christian, whether it's less religious is a different question."? What religion do you think is replacing Christianity?
Islam. Many immigrants to Europe are from Islamic countries and don't take their religion for granted. Islam will probably take over formerly Christian Europe.
That will require emigration in an epic scale, anyway you don't have any data that can backup your claims.
There is the example of America, Europeans took Christianity with them when they invaded the American continent, but Europe will be a lot more difficult to be invaded...
Well is immigration from those countries stopping any time soon? And don't those immigrants have larger families than average European families? Of course one can make projections and they don't necessarily have to come true but if the variabilities don't change what's to say that the trend doesn't continue.
You do know that are laws in place about emigration? And you realize that will take millennium to replace 857 million people with emigrants and there is the need for these emigrants to maintain their traditions over many generations and Europeans stop reproducing at all, can you see the problems with what you are saying?
If you think like that you can project when the whole world will be muslin...
It doesn't have to depend on reproduction. Europe is becoming less Christian and Islam is a more assertive religion with more faithful followers in Europe. When there is an intermarriage between a secular and a Muslim, you think the children aren't going to be raised Muslim? You also forget that there are converts to Islam.
And I'm only talking about Europe. Christianity elsewhere is doing very well.
Perhaps you didn't read the articles posted by me and specially the article shared by Cranfordjs, religion is dying in many European countries, in Australia and others! People are not abandoning Christianity to embrace another religion, people are tired of religions and there bullshit, will it be Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, enough is enough!
Sure Christianity is fine outside of Europe, and Islam is even better as it is the fastest growing religion according to Guiness World Records.
Any way i proved my point, and you are wrong, and the first world countries are completely secular, and as i demonstrate people in these countries are becoming atheists or at least not religious, but there is still much places to spread religions in the third world.
No problem pedrog. Europe, Australia, etc is becoming secular. Whether it will stay that way is for another discussion.
It's already been a religious society. It will remain a non-religious society, because to do otherwise is a repeat of history. Society must evolve forward. Societies of history that were completely religious are extinct....that should tell you something. It's not healthy.
They are not becoming, they are! As is your country since the day it was formed!
Perhaps you are confusing secularism with some other thing, please check:
No, you misunderstand. Our constitution says that the government shall make no law establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is not secularism as you have outlined.
Ah yes, the constitution that was written by people who WEREN'T Christians but for some reason it was founded on Christianity.
That makes as much sense as celebrating the destruction of individual culture and the rape of indigenous way of life. Because it is a wonderful thing when someone can destroy a way of life that has existed for hundreds of years untouched so they can spread their opinion of why their God is better.
Things do tend to get better when everyone thinks exactly the same way. That doesn't lead to stagnation and the eventual dying out of the human race or anything.
Plus it's so much fun to coerce needy villages into accepting cures and food for their dying children in the name of God. "Say you believe in Jesus or no water for you!"
Whatever are you babbling about? Oh, never mind.
LMAO, reading comprehension problems again?
The signers of the Constitution=NOT CHRISTIANS
Therefore U.S. NOT FOUNDED on CHRISTIANITY. Did I keep it simple enough for you?
Got an interesting question though... if a child dies without ever hearing the word of God does he go to heaven or hell?
It's really more like you had a whole conversation inside your head and you just spit out your ending. I'm really not interested in whatever weird internal conversation you had.
LMAO! Learned your lesson eh? I would avoid conversation with those more intelligent than myself as well... So it's back to talking to other fundies for you then?
"In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief."
I'm sorry you really confused me right now, can you please elaborate why the USA is not a secular country?
According to your reference, secularism is a separation of government from religious institutions and dignitaries and the imposition of religion by government. That is not what our Constitution says.
Come on!!! It's the same thing... Does the pope has some kind of authority in USA, are you obligated or prohibited to have some kind of religion? No!
That is secularism!!!
I will quote again:
Secularism: "In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief."
USA First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (...)"
No, it's not the same thing. Many people do make the mistake of interpreting it as separation of church and state and no doubt you talked to someone like that. However, the position of the government when it comes to religions is that it has no position. There is no intentional separation they just kinda operate independently. Think about it, our leaders get sworn in with a Bible. Does that seem like secularism?
Lemon Vs. Kurtzman (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
It IS the same thing. The U.S. is a secular nation.
Why do you insist on throwing facts into these stupid threads ? You know it only confuses and irritates those with eyes firmly fixed in a glazed expression and lips moving in sync with some other dimwitted make-believe guru
On the vague hope that any impressionable individuals entering these threads actually find some realism. Those damn facts will get you every time.
Oh, and because facts make zealots angry. They type funny when they get angry.
I could point out that secular doesn't mean atheist but that would really confuse them. The persecution complex just doesn't allow for a IDGAF mentality.
Eh, no, it's not facts that make "zealots" angry.
It's insults and other demeaning insinuations.
And seeing people insult themselves, really, makes us both angry and sad; sad for the insulter mostly.
Ah, insults such as "You are wrong". Or "What you are saying is not true" or "You have misunderstood"
Brenda, I think sour milk should be left to curdle.
Not sour milk. You said I wasn't a Christian because of my faith. Then you claim that the members of my faith that wrote the Constitution did so to create a Christian country.
Just pointing out the hypocritical logic.
I'm an eternal optimist.
I was hoping for, at least, buttermilk.
But yes the milk often curdles to a degree of unusability.
I'm fascinated Brenda. When did I insult myself?
No it doesn't, there is something to be corrected.
You invoked your constitution and by your constitution USA is a secular country, the introduction of references to a god in the currency and in the pledge of allegiance, and that sworn thing are more recent, probably because the cold war and the fear of the soviet communism, somewhere in the 50's maybe.
And by this, religion is being imposed to USA citizens, a violation of the very first amendment, how can this be happening for so many years?
Invoke? I"m not aware that I replaced God with the Constitution but you are a secular so I understand that you have replaced God with the concept of rationalism. If you read our history and how the Founders wrote the Constitution there was never a denial or animosity against a Creator. We are not the French. What the Founders thought was that government and religion can occupy the same public space. Religion and religious groups were to be treated like any other group with ideas. This is something that you seculars often have a hard time understanding.
The President doesn't have to have the Bible to be sworn in but he or she is not denied it either.
Because some people have trouble understanding anything written besides the Bible... er... make that including the bible.
I'll let you in on a little secret....
"fundies" is also a myth propogated by people who hate Christianity.
What will "kill" Christianity is people in situations like yours. When it becomes cheap to be a Christian, Christianity becomes cheap, and even those who claim it act more like the world than followers of Jesus. That is the case here in America as I'm sure it is in Portugal. I used to talk to a Belgian kid who basically said the same thing (he is an atheist.)
Where Christianity costs you something, that's where it flourishes. Not lack of education, but knowledge of necessity is what makes it grow.
What an absolutely dreadful view on the lessons of Christ. Jesus didn't mean for us to suffer by following his teachings. Caring for one another, helping those less fortunate than us and being kind and tolerant should be the easiest most natural thing in the world.
To say that this requires some sort of "cost" is a sad sad assessment of Christians.
Jesus wasn't saying that he wanted us to suffer. He just knew that we would suffer at the hands of unbelief or unbelievers' attacks.
That's why he said take up our crosses and follow him.
In case you don't recall those verses, I can give you several Biblical references. But surely, as a professed Christian, you've already read them....
And yet history is full of attacks and slaughters against non believers by Christians.
Is it? Perhaps. There's nothing I can do about that. Especially when modern non-believers want to cry discrimination when they're presented with simple truths of the Bible, getting offended at even the mention of right and wrong and the mention of a hell to be avoided. It is unbelievers who need to quit blaming all Christians for the tyranny of a few or the previous ones. If one's mortal soul is at stake, I'd think they'd consider the truth on an individual basis, wouldn't you? One can only place blame on someone else for so long, then they must examine their own consciences.
Right and wrong is a concept that doesn't have to do anything with religion so non believers aren't offended by that. It is the hell part that is offensive. My mortal soul isn't at stake and I see the truth as it is. You're right, we can't do anything about the horrible things that happened in the past. We can learn from it though and evolve as a society.
Yeah, I don't like it when preachers talk about hell to nonbelievers. It wouldn't make any sense to them and I don't think it's right that they threaten using faith. Heck, it's not right that they threaten at all.
It makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is why anyone would want to believe in it. I agree, threats are bad.
The hellfire and damnation stuff comes mostly from Revelations. Christianity from the beginning has discussions on various points of theology. Some concentrate and fixate on the rapture. Others don't.
Of course, pick and choose what you like! It's the christian way. Some think divorce is fine (coincidentally they are divorced) while they believe others who violate biblical laws are doomed. There's a name for this type of person, know what it is?
I've said before and will say again that it is a sad state when people in the church do things like that. Some things do happen, it's true. And frankly a lot of people lump unitarians with evangelicals with catholics, when the differences often outweigh the similarities. However, Jesus certainly preached on hellfire and damnation in the Gospels, not just in Revelation.
You do know that Jesus spoke about hellfire and damnation in the Gospells, don't you?
Erm, are they supposed to hide that part under the rug until nonbelievers are too indoctrinated to run away?
IF you find Hell offensive then that means you have some understanding of what's going on.
I've read them Brenda. Not a Christian, a follower of Christ. It eliminates confusion.
I assume you know what a metaphor is? I would imagine I could associate my cross with being blasted by "Christians" for not being bigotous and judgmental enough. Or with those who insist that I am evil because I believe that we actually must WORK to be worthy of Christ instead of saying "I believe so everything else I do is fine".
However, that work is a joy. Not a "cost". If it costs you, then maybe you should think about why.
You are right, the work is a joy. It is constant joy to be in the Lord and doing His work. But Jesus told us to count the cost and that we would suffer for His name. Or perhaps you think that all those people in the first century gave up their homes, families and sometimes lives just because of the power of a metaphor?
Now THAT would be sick and sadistic!
Much to the chagrin of everyone else, but I know believers who do the Lords work could care less about everyone else and only about themselves.
If you meant to say "I know believers who do the Lord's work who couldn't care less about everyone else," then you're right and I agree with you and I think it's sad.
If you meant to say, "I know all believers who do the Lord's work couldn't care less about everyone else but only about themselves," then you have not met the right people and are incorrect. I'm sorry if that's the case.
No, it isn't correct and has nothing to do with anyone I've met, but I accept your apology. Please stop doing the Lords work, it is selfish and disrespectful.
Ah, what? Which one are you responding too?
Doing the Lord's work is selfless and respectful, not the other way around. Just remember that if you consider pointing out that everyone needs Jesus to be an accusation, we're not letting ourselves off the hook.
Yet, Jesus told us to count the cost. He warned us that there would be suffering. When He met Saul on the road to Damascus, He said, "I will show him how much he must suffer."
The other lessons are important and must be carried out because our Lord commanded them. But the simple act of saying that Jesus is the only way will bring resistance, even suffering, even death.
I like my Jesus better. Yours sounds twisted and sadistic.
You've got to be kidding. You don't even believe in Jesus. You just like to say stuff to push buttons.
I merely agreed with Melissa that your Jesus was twisted and sadistic.
If I were the kind of clever person like, say, ATM, I would point out that you can't call someone names who you've previously stated never existed.
But that would be expecting the sort of consistency out of you that you want out of others, then, eh?
Sure, there are many twisted and sadistic fictional characters in novels. The Bible is a good example.
You don't even have to raise your intellectual level up to that of being dim, let alone clever to understand that I never called anyone a name.
That totally side-steps the real issue. It's not a matter of "my Jesus" versus "your Jesus." It's a matter of who Jesus really is and what He actually said. Until you come to grips with that, you're not dealing with the real question.
BTW, the obvious question based on that response would be, "Would following your Jesus mean there's no pain? Even if you're doing it in a Muslim or Communist country, where proclaiming Jesus brings sanction, censure and even death?"
That assumes that part of believing in Jesus is being loud and obnoxious about it. If you believe in Jesus in an area where Christianity is outlawed, then the problem isn't believing in Jesus. The problem there is violating the law. If you are walking around screaming "I am breaking the law" then it is your own mouth that got you in trouble not your beliefs.
By the way, religion really has nothing to do with communism. One is a type of government the other a religion. And Muslims acknowledge the existence of Jesus.
But sure, go ahead and imply that you understand Jesus and I don't. Walk around your world claiming more knowledge about another's faith then they have. Then stand around looking all confused when people get angry and call you names. It must be religious persecution.
"If you believe in Jesus in an area where Christianity is outlawed, then the problem isn't believing in Jesus. The problem there is violating the law."
Well said. The Nazis thought the exact same thing. Castro loves it when people talk like that. Bravo!
"By the way, religion really has nothing to do with communism. " If that is so, then why do communist governments feel so threatened by Christianity? If you don't believe me, google it.
No government in the world is "threatened" by Christianity. Most realize that Christianity is nothing more than human history and mythology(mystic BS), and rather not have it.
And do you believe everything you can Google? If so, let me go post a blog about swamp land in Arizona for sale.
Yet communist governments work hard to wipe out Christianity in their borders.
Mystic BS is mystic BS. I would not want it to create any more ignorance within a society I have to govern either.
Of course, otherwise they end up with citizens similar to yourself.
Provide sources for your claims, please.
Why is anbody threatened by individual belief? Because it goes against the flow and the ego driven masses despise individuals. Make sense? I don't hate Christianity and I don't hate communists, I don't like the opinionated drive of anything. They are all perceptions and are a driving force of our own natures, as individuals. Words are powerful and they do more harm than good in the hands of the wicked.
That would simply mean you really have no idea what communism is about. Why would anyone believe your version of it?
BTW - Founders of the country? Christian!
Signers of the Constitution? Christian!
If you're saying otherwise, produce your sources!
Here's a very partial list of the Unitarians. Just for the record, Unitarians really like Jesus, but they don't believe he was the actual son of God. They don't really go in for the trinity thing either. Some, but not all, are even theists... who basically believe there is probably a God, but he really doesn't care about us individually or interfere in our lives in any way. Not all theists are Unitarians though. I'll get the the purely theist forefathers and the rest of the Unitarians tomorrow. ( Spoiler: There is even a Jew in there too!)
John Adams (1st vice president, second president, signer of the declaration of independence)
Thomas Jefferson (3rd president, signer of declaration of independence) He actually took a razor blade to the bible to eliminate all the "nonsense" like the resurrection, son of God, virgin birth etc.
Ben Franklin (signed both the constitution and declaration of independence)
Ethan Allen (founder of Vermont, revolutionary war hero)
Paul Revere (The guy with the horse)
Thomas Paine (Common Sense)
I asked for sources. I'd like a few.
Did you know Jefferson spent government money to send Christian missionaries to the Indians? That his "razor blade" Bible contained all the red letters (sayings of Jesus) which would include His claims to be God and the Messiah?
Okay, you got what, six? Out of 250? And one Jew? Horrors, whatever will I do? Oh, wait, remember that I already knew all this stuff. It doesn't change anything. And it's easy to say that the Founders were not Christian. Please prove it.
LMAO, so now you are actually going to try to tell me the beliefs of my own denomination. That's precious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … versalists
And I told you I'd get to more of them tomorrow.
And you seriously are going to sit there and tell me that Thomas Jefferson was really a devout believer in the son of God thing? Really? I actually own a Jefferson Bible (Because it is part of my faith, go figure) I can promise you that no where in it does Jesus claim to be the son of God. You don't really know anything about your own religion but you are going to tell me all about mine.
So now not only am I not a Christian, but I'm not a Unitarian either. Poor thing this whole "world isn't what I want it to be so I'm going to deny evidence" thing must be extremely painful to live with... I wouldn't guess you would mind all that much though, since apparently your version of Jesus likes people to suffer.
By the way, you do realize that the three most influencial people in the development of the constitution were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Thomas Paine right? Oh look, there they are right up there on that list. Oh yeah, I probably need to source common knowledge too... right?
I love it when the gawd-luvving Christians learn that a lot of UU's are atheists. They get really funny looks on their little faces..
I know someone who is a UU Minister. She tells a hilarious story of going on an interdenominational retreat while still going through her training. I can't begin to do it as she does, but the gist of it was that on the first night, a born-again stood up to make a little speech about how wonderful it was that they were all there to share their common faith in Jesus's resurrection.
My friend piped up and said "I'm sorry, we don't all believe in the divinity or resurrection of Jesus".
The born-again gulped, assimilated that with some difficulty, and, finally understanding this bit of insanity, said "Well, then, at least we all do worship the same loving God".
My friend had to correct him again, explaining that many UU's are atheists.
The poor kid probably had nightmares from that.
One of my daughters goes to a UU church. They had a bit of a flap a few years ago when one of the other type of UU (the hard-believing kind) wanted the minister to bring more "god" into the sermons. Most of the congregation felt that would be a very bad idea
Why don't you produce your source. Can you prove the founding fathers were christian? Of course you can, your church tells you so there's your proof. Just like your bible is proof that snakes talk and homosexuals are evil. Lmao
No, it isn't. It's a term the rest of us use to describe those who have excessive religious belief and especially those who take the Bible/Koran/Whatever literally. It's no fiction - they exist.
If that's you, we don't hate you. You baffle us. It would be easy to understand if none of you had any obvious indications of intelligence, but unfortunately for us, that's not always the case. We don't understand how you can talk to us intelligently one minute and then babble nonsense the next. It's disorienting.
We will sometimes ridicule you. The inconsistencies and obvious contradictions of almost all religious belief make it all easy targets and the fundies are the easiest of all. But that's not hate.
When some "fundies" do hateful things, yes, we hate that and can "hate" individuals who did those acts. Our "hate" is diluted by understanding though - we blame your parents, your friends, your church for encouraging and fostering the hate that might have caused those acts or we just attribute it all to insanity - like that poor man who shot Senator Giffords.
I would be a little hesitant to use "we" here because I've been the direct target of, yes, hate because I'm a "fundie." Actually, I'm not, but for many the distinction is completely lost. I'm conservative, I'm Christian, ergo I'm a bigoted, hate-filled "fundie" and no epithet is too debased to heap on me.
Then they actually get to know me!
I actually understand what you mean because I became a Christian at 21, which means that I spent 21 years being not Christian. I didn't come from a religious family, let alone Christian, and I still baffle many of my relatives. All I'll say at this point is that Jesus made Himself known to me. I don't expect that to really answer any questions for you, it's just an explanation. I DO take the Bible literally, but that's a longer and more difficult process than I think many non believers can understand. It's sort of like when my wife explains having a baby to me. I know that I can have an intellectual understanding, but as a man I will never know what it's really like. Suffice for now to say that it's not babbling, even if it doesn't make sense to you.
The world is secular. The church itself (as a whole) has become secular and is becoming more and more worldly, which is why some people knock Christianity --citing, 'you can't tell the secular world from the church.' And sadly, in some instances, I agree.
Well the church is definitely in the world. Just because not everyone has the pious attitude or dressed somber doesn't mean that the church is more secular. I do think some of the individual Protestant churches have lost focus but, they would be exceptions.
Has this Christianity anything to do with Jesus?
Paul just exploited people in the name of Jesus Christ as Jesus had forewarned.
True followers of Christ are Christians.
And Paul was a true follower of Christ. It had everything to do with Christ. Saul's life, heart, soul were changed by Christ appearing to him and commissioning Paul to tell people about Jesus Christ.
I am sorry to state.
Paul's heart or soul was not changed; he remained a deadly enemy of Jesus and his true followers; he only changed his strategy; it is for this that Jesus told of a wolf coming in the sheep's clothing; I think he was hinting towards Saul or Paul obviously.
No intention to hurt anybody's feelings or faith; just to mention what I sincerely believe with truthful reasons.
Chapter and verse for that one?
So how was Paul's theology actually different from Jesus'?
Christianity is far from a truly global religion. It's more like a global infection.
So where's the good news? The world is just shifting from one absurd superstition to another.
How is Christianity is a truly global religion good news? It seems like people view religion like great sex, their heads are in the clouds.
What does that even mean?
If people know they can go to Heaven only through Jesus, then spreading Christianity around the globe would truly be the best news there is!
You cannot say it is "becoming more global", that would be an incorrect statement.
Global is a complete state. There are currently Christians in every country. Ipso facto, Christianity is global. You cannot say it is becoming "more global".
What you can say however is, poor, underdeveloped countries are having religion exploiting their ignorance and lack of education.
You could also say that most moral and developed secular countries are losing religion.
Take 3rd world countries out of the picture, and Christianity in particular would be in a drastic rate of decline
And this is neither a hate speech nor even a biased one, this is just the natural development of morality.
Good news? It's like zombie disease spreading, really bad thing for skepticism in this world.
It's very good news that we have freedom to choose our religion and practice it.
That said, I'm not Christian myself, so I'm not happy. Not mad either, though. Just indifferent.
The name for the research group is certainly apt, if nothing else!
Christianity is disappearing in parts of Europe, but the numbers greatly increasing in Africa. Over the past few years African missionaries have been coming to the UK and have been making some progress in parts of the country.
got that but where is good news in this?...good news for vatican u meant?
Good, now that that's over...
The fact that Christianity is spreading into third world countries is hardly cause to celebrate. It really does mean the destruction of micro-cultures. These micro-cultures have been invaluable in contributing knowledge that has led to quite a few medical breakthroughs as well as folklore and knowledge of history. When Christianity sweeps into these villages the culture is completely destroyed... usually without records and those "missionaries" generally dismiss anything the tribe says as superstitious or ignorant.
Theologically, its kinda a pissy thing to do as well. Most "Christian" scholars will tell you that if a person is never exposed to the word of God then there is no chance of going to hell, after all God is a kind loving fair God right? So basically, these tribes had no chance of all of eternal damnation... until the Christians showed up.
Nothing like spreading the "I like lobster, so you must like lobster too" mentality.
But it's not quite like that...
It's more of the "The flood is coming and I can show you how to save yourself" mentality.
More like "save others so you can save yourself method". Pure egotism at it's worst.
No, it's not. That doesn't even make sense.
If you save others, that's a loving thing to do. Even if it's done out of egotism it still saves others. But the salvation doesn't come from me, it never has and never will. It comes from Jesus. As long as anyone is looking at me (and I'm talking to you Troubled) then you either accidentally or on purpose have missed the point and lost the argument.
Somebody sure as heck needs to explain how this is "Good news".
This is sad news, if true. It could mean that ignorance is spreading rather than withering away as it should be.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not against religion. If you need it, you need it and I'm fine with that. I'll stand to protect your right to believe it and to poison your children with the same disease.
However, I would hope that less and less people do find this necessary and that more and more realize that it's complete nonsense that has no place in the modern world. I know we are a long way from that, but my impression was that religion was decreasing and I saw that as hopeful.
I hope that this does not mean that secularism is diminishing. I hope that it only means that one bit of foolishness is replacing another.
The Good News is always this----that God sent His Son in the flesh to die for the sins of mankind. We can meander the discussion off onto a thousand different tangents, but indeed that is the jist of Christianity.
You act as if Christ is the end all of the conlusion. That way of thinking may not apply to everyone and is the result of clinging to something that may or may not exist. Hence, it is an illusion which to you may be very true. I cannot apply my beliefs to anything, for they simply do not matter. That is what makes it my belief, the fact that they are not your's.
If they don't matter, then why are you vocalizing them?
Beliefs do matter.
And yes, Christ is the end conclusion!
Your meanderings remind me of the original thinking of the preacher in the book of Ecclesiastes. He (Solomon, some say) spoke of vanity and questioned man's purpose, etc., but in the end we note that he arrived at a wise and sane conclusion. He spoke about human frailty and confusion. In the end he realized mankind cannot depend on his own thoughts, even, but that he must depend upon the Creator for all enlightenment. He even states that conclusion---
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
(Ecclesiastes 12: 13, 14).
Mankind may go off onto many tangents and into many religions, but in Truth, if we really seek wisdom, we will revert back to the Truths contained in the Bible. Truths we've overlooked in the attempts to find different ways to God.
I have moved beyond the bible. For me it was but a stepping stone to learning. I have accepted the truth that "I" truly do not exist, not in the sense of self, more in the sense of how "I" am contained within my "Self". The bible is but a bedtime story in this as it is.
Yes, I know the gist of Christianity and I know that y'all refer to that as "Good News".
It's not "Good News" for humanity, though.
I suppose you prefer the "Bad News" the Adversary brings?
@pcunix true...good news for humanity is not backing some 2000 year ago event but using brains to better the world....this is bad news...more religion , more slavery towards unseen,unheard,unknown being ....lesser the religion , more usage of time,energy,resource towards betterment of the world...
On the contrary, it's the best news!
The fact is that everybody is going to hell. Everybody. So the only way to not go there is for Jesus to die to take away our sins and for us to accept Him.
You don't have to. Contrary to what many non-believers seem to want to believe, there's no danger of a Christian theocracy, there's no push for one. But the fact of Jesus' atoning death is the very best news ever!
Hells a pretty happening place as far as I know, because I don't know anything about it.
It's absolutely mind boggling that this type of twisted and sadistic nightmare is not only being propagated to the masses, indoctrinated into the minds of children, but is being lobbied to demand acknowledgement and respect by the highest courts in the land.
I retire to bedlam.
Such a foolish, impotent fellow is still called god?
And sending somebody to be killed is Good news? Pathetic!
Don't worry too much, what the fundies consider Christianity is a far cry away from what the rest of the population (the majority) considers Christianity. By their definition only about 1/3 of Christians are Christians. The Christianity that is spreading to other cultures is not the "born again or burn forever, God is a psychopath" kinda Christianity.
It should also be noted that if Christianity of that sort really were the right choice no one would need to spread the word. Within a few generations they will be gone. Their numbers are dwindling each year.
You say potato, they say bigger potato. Same babble to me, sorry.
My God's better than your's and the argument goes round and round, with no logical conclusion.
Not arguing that, I'm not sure I believe in a God, therefore arguing for his existence would be kinda silly. I will argue that he MIGHT or MIGHT NOT exist and I'm all for everyone believing what they will about him... as long as they don't expect the world to agree.
And that is a form of enlightenment, not expecting agreement. It is what it is and acceptance gets us closer to letting go of the question all together. One can believe all they want, but knowing is another story all together. We argue because we believe we know something that we simply do not.
It's Okay PC. You are entitled to your beliefs... although it's kinda the difference between a small cancerous mole and a full-fledged malignant brain tumor.
I hope all Christians will note that the anti-religious will attribute Jared Loughner as a Christian when actually his facebook showed he was a commie and an Obama supporter before it was pulled down. But they will grasp at anything. I hope whenever any Christian does see this kind of maliciousness, which unfortunately is often, that it be addressed and corrected.
No, Cassie, I know not and care not what that poor things religious beliefs are.
I was simply using it as an example of hateful acts not arousing hate for the person committing them.
Your desire to find hate works well for you, doesn't it?
By your previous posts, I know that you are a narrow minded "liberal" and will not spend time to dissuade you from from your much held beliefs about hate. I will definitely leave that talk to you.
But of course a narrow minded liberal wouldn't know that.
A psychotic christian that founded a religion of his own and was made crazy by it.
What you said is ignorant. Please do some research.
Now that I've addressed ignorance, I'm just going to let it go. Again, I will not dissuade narrow minded liberals from their beliefs.
Yes, making up stuff as you go along most certainly addressed ignorance with the same zealotry and magnitude it denied the facts of law.
A truly stunning thread of dishonesty.
I'm not trying to disuade anyone. I just say it like I see it. They are personal vallues and your's, are no more important as anyone else's, on a personal level.
Where in the heck to do you get your misinformation from? And who was he always praying to with his crowd of "believers"? Pretty sure it was to a dude named Jesus. What part of the Bible Belt are you from?
It's not my job to school your ignorance so I'm not making any further effort.
I am delighted at your inability to school anyone at all since your attempts at self-eduction have obviously fallen way short of success. Jim Jones led another of the multitude of christian based cults, one of which you are apparently a member, not of his cult of course, as they are all with Jr. now, I suppose. But the same old dude and his boy are still worshiped by you and your ilk. But perhaps YOUR god is a different deity.
A part that has people that don't watch the news, or that were not around when it happened.
Jim Jones started out as a Christian preacher but by the time he led everyone on grape kool-aid binge he was much more of a communist.
Don't you ever watch PBS?
Being threatened with spending eternity with such believers in heaven is enough for me to run like heck the other way!
I found out long ago that preachers will shy away from any sermon topic which may upset their flock too much. Try asking one of them why god supposedly impregnated a 13 year old already betrothed virgin without her permission and without the knowledge of her fiancee. And then ask him if this is godlike behavior. Then, get ready for some really poor excuses or the immediate departure of the messenger from god!
FOR me..nowadays...CHRISTIANITY or being a Christian is very necessary..it plays a vital role
in shaping the society for good and making a difference by following what God wants us to do.thank you.
Funny, that's the same reasons used by christians to enslave Africans and Native Americans which (again purely coincidentally) made them wealthy and allowed them to lead a relatively labor free life. But perhaps you believe this "shaping of society" was for the good of the slaves too! There's probably enough room for one more in the previous cartoon if you wish! :LOL:
And by the way, you should only publish original content here. It appears your only hub was copied from blogger.
hi randy godwin!
actually im the owner of that blog..i just expand it here....:-)
and with respect to your reply...i believe that those christians that u mention the one who enslave africans and native americans actually not christian in work and in deeds...because if u are truly christian you will not hurt your fellow men and as a christian you know how to be humble and love your fellow men whatever race he or she belongs..thank you.
Actually - copying your own stuff is still duplicate content and 'copying', so dump the hub or dump the blog - or rewrite each one differently. There are word spinner s for this job but they often leave the text meaningless and uninteresting - maybe you have used one already ?
Perhaps. But people's morals tend to change when money is involved, HF! Even Thomas Jefferson, who attempted to write legislation for the future release of slaves, didn't free his own while others in his state did so out of a sense of morality and justice.
He continued to buy and sell slaves but kept this out of the public eye and newspapers where all slave sales were listed at the time. And of course, he sired several children by his black slave Sally as has been well documented. People tend to justify immorality when it puts money in their pockets. (see Dubya and Haliburton)
And I did know you had your hub already posted on Blogger but felt it was necessary to inform you of the rules here to keep you from running afoul of the Hubpolice!
"(see Dubya and Haliburton)" - LOL! But don't forget the Clintons and Whitewater!
My point is not that Shrub is clean and Bill is not, they're both dirty in something somewhere. My point is that you have to look at all sides.
A box has four sides and so then for corners and four creases, with much space in between.
As far as I know Clinton never started a war with the wrong country and hired his vice president's old company to subcontract the expenses for it. But feel free to refresh my memory if I'm mistaken.
If that is your one and only criterion for citing presidential malfeasance then Nixonians can breath easy, indeed!
My memory is not refreshed. The comparison, please!
And the point is that Shrub is hardly the only one guilty.
How many thousand people died because of Watergate? And besides that was Nixon, not Clinton! Sheesh, you really know your American history! Baptist, right?
Clinton was white water, Nixon was watergate.
Exactly! I assume he meant Whitewater, but one cannot compare that with the consequences of the Iraq War started by the presidential choice of the religious right. And neither Nixon's or Clinton's VPs were ex CEOs of the company which stood to make billions from the particular event. No comparison at all unless one voted for Dubya and now needs some type of excuse for doing so.
Wow. Again, you know what they say about assuming don't you?
It seems strange to me that someone who is trying to promote a clear view of history is being cast as a Shrub apologist.
What are YOU hiding?
You're a good case study.
Wow. That was definitely - showing how wrong you can be by jumping to conclusions.
No, not Baptist.
So tell me, how many thousands did die because of Nixon?
Because of Watergate? None I am aware of! Sorry, you sound like a baptist! Sprinkled?
Ah, I see. Truth? Who cares? We just want to have fun assassinating character!
Sucked any good lollipops lately?
"Not at all! Snakes kill rats! Calm down and have another glass of your favorite flavor of Kool-Aid!"
Yeah, I remember dealing with drunk people too.
What's your favorite beer? Do drink wimpy American style or do you have a Molson muscle?
Congratulations on your first post and welcome to Hubpages!
Yes. I believe this is true. The message of Christ has been almost true when He said that the word of GOd will spread though out every corners of the earth.
Ok, at the risk of exposing my ignorance... What does "grew legs" mean?... I mean relative to the conversation. My best friend uses the phrase every once in a while but he's one of you all New England Yankees as well.
Being part of anything is a turn off to alot of people. Mainly because they are part of something and your idea doesn't fit in with what they see as true. That's the world we live on and it is a reality we cannot share peacefully. It seems only a few can fully accept everyone as they are and not for what they believe.
You know I love ya hon. And I am okay with your philosophy and deep thoughts because I know quite a few Buddhists that I converse with regularly. However enlightened your last statement was, however, it in no way answered what the phrase "grow legs" means in this context.
"Grew legs" means it expanded and has continued to plunder the forums. It is now approaching 200 posts and should have died a miserable death.
Thank you hon, I'll drop you off cookies next time I am running through Mass.
As far as should have died, you are probably right. I'm bored though and can no longer smoke cigarettes to calm my nerves so I'm relegated to arguing on an internet forum to vent frustrations. I've written about parasites all day so comfort eating is also out of the question.
Hey Melissa, try to make the cookies "chocolate chip".
Yeah, and if they are chocolate chip, don't drop 'em all off at Cags. I'm only another couple hours from where he is and I love chocolate chip cookies..
This a religious forum, you don't have to like it for there are plenty of others to be part of. If you are not religious or spiritual, why does it matter?
Hey Mischeviousme, did I say whether or not I liked it or dislike it? WOW! Boy do you assume too much.
And you are who exactly to be questioning me about what I do? Oh, yeah that's right, you're the one running around the forums saying everything in life is an illusion. So, I guess I am a figment of your imagination. If so, I suggest you wake up and come back to reality. Oh yeah, you think reality is just an illusion. Oh never mind...go sit in a corner and be a good little HubPages troll.
Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Robert Treat Paine
Thomas Heyward Jr.
Thomas Lynch Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Nelson Jr.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.
From: B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], pages 7-12
yes the founding fathers were Religious men, Christians and Deists.
I'll go with largely Christians OR Deists. (It's almost impossible to be both) Although "Founding Fathers" encompasses more than the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Paine, for example, signed neither the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. He did have an extraordinary amount of influence in the writing of the Constitution (although he wasn't a framer). There is a remote chance he was Deist, but he was definitely not a Christian or even sympathetic to Christianity.
Also, the term Catholic is largely misleading. But I'll agree that those labeled "Catholic" were Christians (even if the born-agains largely don't claim Catholics as Christians) Most of the "Catholics" were actually Angelicans... They were more represented among the "founding fathers" than your list of signers of the declaration of independence would indicate.
Your list mislabels Franklin and Jefferson.
And the term Congregationalist is also very misleading or rather extremely unspecific. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution one of the most influential ministers of the Congregational Church was Jonathan Mayhew ( The no taxation without representation guy). Mayhew was never "Officially" Unitarian but his ideas were the core of the Unitarian faith. He taught that Christ was separate and subordinate to God and that salvation can only be obtained through good character. Only 4 of the original Congregational Churches that would have served the founding fathers DID NOT convert to Unitarian Churches.
And a very high number of Quakers also hold duel religious affiliations as Quakers and Unitarians.
I could also go on about the actual probable religious affiliations of the others as revealed by church attendance, communion, and religious language if you like.
The point of all this being
1. The United States was never meant to be a "Christian" (or really any other religion) Country. This group of individuals would roll over in their graves to hear it called such.
2. Stop calling the founding fathers Christian if you refuse to acknowledge non-trinitarian religions as Christian. These guys may have formed YOUR country but they helped establish MY religion in America. You can't have it both ways.
There are many christians lost in doctrine of false beliefs... but I do not begrudge them their claim to Christianity.
And my list is perfectly accurate.
I can supply you with church attendance, communion, etc... also
Our founders were God fearing men for the most part. The sucualr left has spent a hundred years trying to dissuade the people of that truth.
And I see they have done a good job of it to date.
Paine is the odd-ball out, true, but he did possess some religious inclination, as many did in that day.
And what do you know about my beliefs in the trinity and those who hold that belief? I do not believe in the trinity, but I have never said they are not Christians. I have said they are lost in false doctrine... as they are.
"There are many christians lost in doctrine of false beliefs... but I do not begrudge them their claim to Christianity."
I thought you said the Mormons weren't real christians? Or was that someone else?
*Grins* well Mormons aren't trinitarians. So, at the least they are lost in false doctrine. Probably shouldn't vote one of the heathens into office ever then. Good thing that the nice Christian boy will probably keep the presidency for another term.
Have you ever read the doctrine of Mormonism?
I bet you have not.
Do you believe God came here and had sex, physical sex, with mary?
Do you believe you will be a God and have your own universe to rule?
And no I do not want one int he office... but I will have to vote for him anyways.
A friend of mine recently posted a lil note on Mormonism which points to some very interesting things.
-"How does an individual’s profession of faith in Mormonism affect their daily decisions and what are the implications of having a Mormon in any political office, especially that of Commander in Chief? My concerns are in the areas of loyalties, LDS prophecies, decision making, and preferential treatment.
What this means in Mormon-speak: God the Father was once a human man who earned his right to become a god through good works and adherence to the Mormon gospel on another planet. He now has a glorified body of flesh and bone and resides with his many wives on a planet "nigh unto Kolob" (a star somewhere in the galaxy) fathering spirit children that will someday be born as mortal humans on this or another earth.
Jesus of Mormonism is our older spirit brother and spirit brother of Lucifer. He volunteered to pay for our sins if we keep all the commandments of the Mormon gospel. According to several LDS prophets and apostles, Jesus was conceived through sexual relations between God the Father and Mary, who is not only one of his spirit daughters, but also one of his eternal wives.
The Holy Ghost is the third personage in the Godhead in Mormonism. He has a body of spirit, but cannot be in more than one place at a time, although his influence may be felt everywhere. The Father is a god; Jesus is a god; and the Holy Ghost is a god. While they are the only gods for the particular part of the galaxy we live in, there are many other gods ruling other solar systems and galaxies.
What is a “firm testimony of the restored gospel?” It is an unwavering belief that the Mormon Church is the only organization on earth through which mankind can be saved. It is the staunch belief that Mormonism alone offers the authorized ordinances (rites and rituals) necessary for reconciliation between God and man. It is the resolute conviction that—as John Taylor, third President of the Church, wrote, "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it" (Doctrine &Covenants 135:3)."-
And there is much more...
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id= … 7395089443
Ow, wow, crazy religious beliefs! You SO right - walking on water, resurrection and world wide floods are so logical and obviously true, but that Mormon stuff is just something else! Ayup. I can certainly see where you are coming from..
Not a Mormon... don't care. If I believed in what the mormon religion said I would be a Mormon. You, however, seem pretty irate about it. Seeing other's religion as a personal insult is also a bit arrogant, as it assumes that they are specifically doing it to piss you off. They very well might be the correct religion. You, personally, better hope they aren't. You were just kinda rude to their God after all.
You AREN'T all trying to piss me off?
Are you sure about that?
Well YOU of course we are trying to piss off. That didn't start until a couple years ago when the King of Christianity (Rush Limbaugh) wrote a memo from his secret bunker. I get the feeling there is something about you that pisses him off.
Ahh, Rush. Gawd luv him!
I used to listen to him on AM radio. It helped me feel more tolerant toward my slightly less idiotic conservative friends. They seemed almost reasonable after listening to Rush and the Dittoheads.
Try being married to one of those dittoheads.
I cannot imagine.. My heart goes out to you if that is your sad situation. Why on earth.. Oh, never mind.
Conservative Republican, Fundamentalist Christian.
Generally, I would say I love him and that a person is more than their religion and political affiliation. I would mean it too. However I am deep in the throws of pregnancy hormones and my husband has chosen to be an asshat today. It has nothing to do with politics or religion either. ::end personal off topic rant::
Must be hard to have couple friends.. Most couples re bound to dislike one of you at least somewhat.
Butting in here - a person's political and religious affiliations, views etc pretty much illustrate the nature of the person I would have thought. For instance - A right wing warmongering little soldier for christ is probably still a dimwit relative to those around them, including their own claimed religion ??
Not really and believing that way will get you in trouble We are both avid readers (not casual, I mean very avid) and many of our conversations revolve around literature. We both are horror movie buffs (although he prefers the slashers and I like the suspense-type) We both enjoy volunteer work and are both animal rights nuts. (of the spca-humane society type, not peta)
On top of that he is a doting husband (usually) and an extremely involved and caring father. There is more to life than what God you believe in or what political party you support. As a matter of fact, the really GOOD parts of life usually involve neither.
@P.C. Most of our friends are the parents of our kid's friends. Our families are just as diverse as we are (individually as well in comparison to each other) Both families are very ethnic as well. There's infighting at every function anyway and would be regardless of political or religious affiliations. It's kinda like a hobby.
Your situation is your affair, interesting though it seems however, in my family the rabid christians arrogantly display their fake morals and are ignorant fools, the feminist only sees everything through her fear of men generally, the right wing nut happily kills anything he comes across that flies, crawls or looks at him， and is apparently happy in his paranoia with his submissive wife - the list goes on and all of them are what they are and their politics and religion match their general personality exactly, and they are all generally interesting company and good to their partners except the feminist who cannot stand men but is not gay
LOL, that sounds like a pretty common situation and I'm not saying that Bruce doesn't occasionally act like a stereotypical conservative fundamental christian. (And I'm sure that I act like a stereotypical ultra-liberal unitarian at times too) But honestly, it really doesn't come up very much. We're too busy living.
The fights in our family between the Guys usually don't get to the political/religious level as Sports (notice the capital letter) takes most of the conversation. The women in our family are too busy with the kids (we reproduce...a lot)and gossip. Horribly gender-stereotyping but it's how the chips fell.
I think at times we can fall into the religion/politics thing so far that we lose track of all the things that arent either. Unfortunately that also creates individuals who have turned into archtypes because they really have nothing else going on in their lives other than religion and politics. It's a nice diversion and I love talking about both, however the majority of my life is spent being mommy (I wouldn't have it any other way) and I'm surely not thinking about God or Democracy while I'm chasing toddlers and dealing with teenage angst.
They claim to be christians, like others here. How do you tell them apart?
Well, I used to believe that Christians were believers in Christ. I was told in no uncertain terms, however, that the only true Christians were those that thought exactly like the other Christians. Which, I guess, eliminates almost all the Christians except for the Born-Again Fundies... who seem to have some sort of Borg-like hive-collective thought process.
Since I like to ask questions and interpret my own thoughts, I am not allowed in the Club. That's absolutely fine with me. I have dubbed myself "follower of Christ" to eliminate any confusion. I'm not exactly sure who they follow. The hive queen maybe? Nice to know that Christ has been replaced by Ann Coulter.
People who think a creator wound up the universe and hasn't been back since are hardly "god fearing"
Why would you thing God is not here?
God is always among us.
There are no gods, but never mind that.
Many of the bright folks who built that Constitution thingy were people who believe in a creator god that has no on-going interest in the world or anything else. They were just as confused as you are, but a person with such beliefs certainly has nothing to "fear".
Others believed in an "all-loving" god. Those folks have nothing to "fear" either.
You atheists always crack me up.
One day you will seek God, probrably in the worst moment of your life, and I hope he forgives and helps you.
have a nice day.
And a couple of the founders were Deists, a couple.
That won't happen and I don't need forgiveness from anyone else other than any humans I've wronged and maybe myself. You have a nice day as well.
I wasn't talking to you... but that is okay. I would imagine you lumped yourself in with the generalized "you atheists" remark. It was to PC, but I hope He helps you also when you need it.
You have a nice day, also.
Oh, the old "no atheists in foxholes" nonsense?
I've been there. I've been very close to death several times in my life and never had any thoughts of gods. I thought about my family and other folks who might miss me, but no "seeking" of any imaginary beings.
*pats head* If believing that makes you feel better dear.
The question has and always will be why would you believe God IS here?
Because the Bible told you so?
Ignoring for a moment the argument about whether the majority of Founding Fathers were Trinitarian or not...
The Founding Fathers did intend this country to be one where people could worship God as they chose. So often today, saying that American "isn't and never was a Christian country" is code for "religious faith has no place in the public square."
I don't know if you believe that, but if you do then please show me where any of the Founding Fathers believed the same.
Then your completely accurate list disagrees with my equally perfectly accurate source. It could be because it was written in 1848 from, I assume, records from the time. It had to acknowledge Adams as a Unitarian, you know since he formed a Unitarian church. But they added the Unitarian AFTER the fact, since "Unitarian" was not an official religious affiliation in America at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Like congregationalism, it was religious movement.
Please do provide whatever information you have.
And I neither know nor care what your religious affiliation is. My comments in this thread were not directed at you until you posted your incorrect list. Unless I am arguing with a sock puppet of the OP or (later) Chris Neal. Which I guess is possible. There is a history of discussion that you are ignorant of. But now that we are on the topic, post sources that my doctrine is false. I'll accept a stone tablet etched by lightning or an actual visit from either God or Jesus. Don't tell me what a council or an aging apostle said.
If you are speaking in regards to the trinity, read your bible, and see if you find it in there.
It really is simple as that. No disrespect intended, Melissa
It was a council which told you all that the trinity existed to begin with?
So I do not understand how you say I should NOT show you a council.
I have not used any councils, other than to show where it came from. It was a council at Nicea who instituted the trinity. Of which every Catholic Scholar will tell you that it is not found in the Gospel or Old testament, and that the authority for it comes only, and solely from the church, and not the bible.
That should tell you something on its own.
I believe I gave you this link before? (the first one) I gave to someone anyways. But if you read this lil work on it, the first link, I think you would have a completely different view of the trinity. it is very thurough and thought prevoking in it presentation, and they put it in clearer more concise terms that I am able to.
If you choose not to read it... then I cannot help you. This work touches on every laast verse used to support it, on the history of it, and on the Catholic Scholars views on it.
I would also ask you to google Catholic Scholars as regards the trinity and the authority supporting it, as I said it is the church, not God nor Christ, who developed the trinity.
So I would ask with all due respect that you at lease review the materials.
And I am not Chris, nor the OP.
PS; I am not trying to argue, Melissa. But the best course I can give you is to read this info and decide for yourself. Long held beliefs are very hard to let go of or see past. but I think if you read with an open mind, you will see.
And here is a list as to the founders.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_F … igion.html
For politeness I read your links.
Not to be rude, but they are nothing I haven't seen before.
Please understand that I have read the Bible. Quite a bit. I just don't get out of it what you do. How you interpret it is not how I interpret it. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, but in turn I also assume that you could be wrong as well. And then there is the very real possibility that both of us are. As such, I find your claims to be just a bit judgmental and also arrogant. Sorry, but implying that you are correct and I am not is arrogant, especially since neither of us has any proof and couldn't possibly produce proof.
As far as using verses to support your argument, that doesn't really work since I don't take the bible literally. I believe it is an inherently flawed document that was heavily influenced purposely by politics and translated and changed so many times that it is unreliable. Furthermore, it is incomplete by exclusion of books and written by humans in the first place. Given that viewpoint, quoting verses at me is as effective as quoting Alice in Wonderland.
Thirdly, you assume that I was indoctrinated into my religion. I wasn't. I chose unitarinism later in my life. UU's aren't really taught about specific points of religion as there is no official creed or dogma. There are atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans etc. that are all welcomed. Their viewpoints are all equally valid and each person is encouraged to find their own path. My beliefs were formed by intense research and self-evaluation. My beliefs change in little ways every day with each conversation I have and each history, science, religion or philosophy text I read. I evolve as a person with each new bit of information I acquire.
That being said, one of the guiding principles of my faith and most other UU's is that no one is right and no one is wrong. It has always been so. So surely that gives an indication of what those Unitarians who were largely responsible for the content of the Constitution (Jefferson, Adams, Paine) felt about a "Christian" country and might shed light on exactly what was intended by separation of church and state.
I assumed nothing.
I did not say you were wrong. And I agree we all, or both, could be wrong in the end.
And though I did not say you were wrong... I do not believe you are right, either.
And God, is right.
He is very clear in his Bible as to what he expects and wants you do and not do. So that is not so cut and dry as allow everyone thier own interpretation and acceptance of anything anyone wants to do.
God is very plain as to what he accepts and does not accept... and no one has the right to compromise and synchritize his faith. Israel and judah did that... and look where it got them.
And there is no, "Seperation of Church and State", in the Constitution, Melissa. That is a single line in a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist.
The intent was not to allow them to mingle, or rule one another, not to seperate them wholey.
PS; if you have read the bible and know of the sources and info, the Catholic Scholars, etc... then you are well aware that the trinity is not in the Bible, and that it is a construct of Man.
You are well aware that you are following doctrines and traditions of Men, and not God.
You are well aware that the catholics mis-interpreted verses and added to one verse in particular, in john, to support thier claims. The verse that says Thomas said... "you are my Lord, My God." That last "My God"... is not in the original Greek transcripts.
Okay. As long as you are aware of all that.
Thank you again for giving me information I already know. Separation of Church and State is easier that quoting the information.
As for the rest, once again interpretation. There is no clear evidence or there would only be one religion and one denomination.
As for your opinion on the purpose of SoCaS that is also just your opinion.
As a matter of fact, when everyone could understand that pretty much everything they believe in both politically and religiously is a matter of opinion then there wouldn't be any more hostilities.
And yes you could bring up supporting information for your opinion as could I. As could almost everyone else. Once again, if there was definitive proof one way or another there wouldn't be any disagreement.
I don't buy the "you're ok, I'm ok" stuff, but I will say this: if you want to find the smartest people in your community, the UU church is a great place to start. I'm not saying you won't find smart people elsewhere, but you'll definitely find a great big pile of 'em there.
Judging from the members of my fellowship (humbly excluding myself of course), I agree. I would guess the average is high-average to gifted I.Q. It might not be a fair representation of the faith in general though, we have a higher than average number of college professors in the fellowship. (We are a stone's throw away from 2 major universities and 2 smaller state colleges)
Well, the tolerance and acceptance, including allowing (more than "allowing" even) atheists tends to attract the brighter folks. Unless they are nasty curmudgeons like me, of course. I can't get along with anyone except my wife and kids and one of my sisters.. and even they think I'm off a bit.
Good News! Christianity is a Truly Global Religion
This is a sign of Jesus coming again to refute the religion invented in his name; this is why it is called Anti-Christ; not belonging to the teachings of Jesus.
What about your high horse? Do you come down off it, or just ride 'em cowboy?
Is this why Nigeria has so many millionaire preachers scamming the impoverished?
http://www.vice.com/read/nigeria-millio … or-fireman
by Iontach3 years ago
Would you respect anybody who believed in any religion other than Christianity?
by aoiffe3797 years ago
During a program that allowed comments from people on the street, one individual was asked what can be done to stop crime. The response was to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and be baptized. An individual who was viewing...
by mmaize7 years ago
Should we fund for the poverty that exists in our own country before the third-world countries?There's poverty that exists in industrialzed nations and we are also aware of the poverty in the developing third world...
by nightwork45 years ago
a group of 500 muslim scholars are praising the killer of the pakistan governor, how does the...affect your views of the muslim religion?they say he should have been killed for opposing blasphemy laws that mandate death...
by lizzieBoo5 years ago
Some people like to comfort themselves with the idea that if they get rid rid of horrible-old Christianity from the world, we will be left with nice, peaceful nihilism. I would like to point out that if you trample away...
by Stump Parrish7 years ago
I keep hearing that the lack of religion is what is wrong with this country. Tell me what good has come from the christian religion here in America. What advancement in our society is a direct benefit of christianity?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.