Christians Decline Sharply in America

[KariW]

Do you really want to go back to a time when black men and women and even children were your chattles ?

I personally would like to go back to a time when life was sacred, and unborn babies weren't aborted like they were trash because they are inconvenient - Thank You Liberalism! And I have no problem with it if it is done to save the life of mother or in cases of rape.

Edited May 19, 2015 by KariW

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I personally would like to go back to a time when life was sacred, and unborn babies weren't aborted like they were trash because they are inconvenient - Thank You Liberalism! And I have no problem with it if it is done to save the life of mother or in cases of rape.

Abortion has been a fact of life of human society since we were living on the plains and the jungle. There was never a golden age when abortion wasn't part of human society.

Denying this would simply put us back in the age of back street abortions where the life of the mother was placed at risk as well.

Br Cornelius

[KariW]

Abortion has been a fact of life of human society since we were living on the plains and the jungle.

As has Murder.....Doesn't make it right. Just saying!

Now to get back on topic....I also have to wonder if the philosophical changes (tolerance) in Christianity for multiple reasons, is perceived as a decrease in the number of Christians.....hmmm. I do believe that Christians need to be more tolerant on certain aspects of humanity.... but they don't have to agree with things that go against their faith.

[+Link of Hyrule]

PA

Since you didn't come back on the Galileo example,

Sorry, I read it over the weekend when I had a few things going on, and intended to get back to you but forgot about it (now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure there's a post between myself and psyche101 over on the other spirituality board that I also forgot to respond to, I'll have to do that one tomorrow but in the meantime I can address your further direct question here:

perhaps I should directly point to a sentence of yours I have a problem with:

Why not? Why cannot?

Just on the basis of what you said, that they are European, identify as Catholic, either arranged their own baptisms or grew up in families that arranged baptisms for them, and married within the church (that is, married another member of the church, you didn't say whether or not there were religious ceremonies), we may reasonably infer that they are cultural Christians.

If in addition to being culturally Christian, they live their lives day-to-day based on the norms of their culture, including experiencing private regret if and when they depart from those norms, then they perforce live according to Christian example. Much of that is simply behaving decently, as is often found among those of other religious cultures and among the irreligious, too, but almost certainly, some of their thinking reflects specifically Christian ideas of good behavior.

Coming at it from the other direction, these Austrian Catholics don't claim to be the same variety of Christian that you are. Surely you have noticed that most people who call themselves "Christian" don't claim to be of your variety.

Having morals that were influenced by Christian thought does not make a person a Christian. If you claim to be a follower of Jesus, that's a start. If you don't believe in Jesus at all but were baptised as a Catholic, you can be a Catholic but you CANNOT be a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ, if you dismiss the very idea of Jesus you fail the test. I therefore can say with confidence that my friend's parents can claim to be Catholics and I won't stand in their way. The moment they claim to be Christian, however is where I draw a line. Out of respect to my friend and to the belief of his parents I didn't argue the issue, but if they asked my opinion on the matter I would answer as I have here. You can be a Catholic without being a Christian, and you can be a Christian without being a Catholic. The two terms are not synonymous.

Can I be a Buddhist and claim that the way to enlightenment is through hedonism? Hedonism is in direct opposition to the 4 Noble Truths. Were I to tell a Buddhist that this was the way to Enlightenment they would be very well within their Rights to tell me "no, PA, that is not what Buddhism is, you can't be a Buddhist and hold hedonism as a way to Enlightenment". But apparently one can claim to be a Christ-follower (Christ-ian) and not follow Christ. Claiming to be Catholic is a denominational matter, and I have no doubt that you can be a Catholic by Catholic standards and not by Christian standards (I know, I'm repeating myself, it's a bad habit I have when stressing a point that I feel needs to be made).

Though on a matter arising from your comment:

I have no doubt that to a limited extent, your statement

is reasonable. You probably are fully qualified to assess others' compliance with your own variety of Christianity. On the other hand, I don't think you do have any "qualification" to posit a global standard of Chiristian adherence that trumps any other thoughtful observer's standard.

To an extent this is absolutely true. I have to acknowledge this to at least some small degree. There are grey areas of Christianity which various denominations may disagree. And there are some truly glaring differences among other denominations (eg, Mormons, JW's). But there are some differences that simply disqualify the statement "I am a Christian". Solely basing this decision on "I was born in a Catholic country and was baptised as a child" is one such difference. Again, repeating myself, that may make them "Catholic", it does not make them Christian.

If you disagree with that statement, you are free to do so. You cannot change my mind by arguing that I am not the arbiter of who is and is not a Christian. Ultimately that decision is God's. And at the day of judgement Jesus may just tell these Catholics (oh heck, he may even tell me, if I'm so wrong in my beliefs) "depart from me you evil doer, I never knew you" (to co-opt a famous saying of Jesus).

[Grandpa Greenman]

I personally would like to go back to a time when life was sacred, and unborn babies weren't aborted like they were trash because they are inconvenient - Thank You Liberalism! And I have no problem with it if it is done to save the life of mother or in cases of rape.

Getting your history from Faux News? You mean back in the good old days when you couldn't feed them all, you would take the newborn out and leave it to die. Or back in the 50's when women would sometime carry a dead child until it went septic inside her, because abortion was illegal. Or back in the 60's when my brother, who worked a the morgue, told me about all the young women who came in, because of back street abortions. Abortion is a women's health issue, it is between a woman and her doctor. If conservatives have their way women will be reduced to the status of broodmares.

[Occult1]

Politicians in the Democratic party do it all of the time. They won't deny they are Christians, If they are asked, but they won't put any emphasis on it. They have been made to feel shame in being a Christian by their own hypocritical party.

I think it comes down to faith being a personal thing for a lot of people. In a secular society, politicians might not feel the need of constantly reminding people of their religious beliefs. They are more comfortable that way. Here in Canada you rarely ever hear a politician engage in these topics publicly, because it's considered irrelevant to his/her duty. We care not if you are a christian, a muslim, a jew, a sikh or a pagan as long as you can deliver for your constituency.

Edited May 19, 2015 by samus

[Michelle]

I think it comes down to faith being a personal thing for a lot of people. In a secular society, politicians might not feel the need of constantly reminding people of their religious beliefs. They are more comfortable that way. Here in Canada you rarely ever hear a politician engage in these topics publicly, because it's considered irrelevant to his/her duty. We care not if you are a christian, a muslim, a jew, a sikh or a pagan as long as you can deliver for your constituency.

As it should be. Nowdays though, there is an extreme anti-religious trend among certain segments of society. They will research anything and everything a right wing politician says about their religion and hold it against them. They often don't realize how religious their own brand of politicians are because they don't put in the same research. If a politician gives an hour speech and mentions the word "God" one time it is held against them.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I think Michelle, you are indulging in paranoia for a women living in an overwhelmingly Christian society.

the problem is that the right-wing decided to use religion as a political tool all the way back in the Reagan administration. before that religion was a very marginal issue for most people and most politicians. People are not stupid and they are coming to realize they have been played for a particular ideological agenda.

Br Cornelius

[shadowhive]

Is there a particular reason why Catholism is so hard for people to leave? It seems odd to me that people have to actually send off paperwork to leave it (and it's such a hassle that most don't bother).

Edited May 19, 2015 by shadowhive

[regeneratia]

I wonder if this is going to have an impact on the next election. I can only hope.

I have always found the pew research center to be very slanted in their research. It is in Penn, a rather strange state. I think that Christians comprise far less people in this country than what they relate. Compare their research to the US Census reports in the last thrity years. There is a huge difference in what PEW relates from what the census relates.

Church attendance has been down for decades now. More and more people are turning to alternative or eastern religions. Western civilization, kiss my hind quarter. You have failed THE PEOPLE.

Rome never fell, IMHO.

[Michelle]

I think Michelle, you are indulging in paranoia for a women living in an overwhelmingly Christian society.

the problem is that the right-wing decided to use religion as a political tool all the way back in the Reagan administration. before that religion was a very marginal issue for most people and most politicians. People are not stupid and they are coming to realize they have been played for a particular ideological agenda.

Br Cornelius

Paranoia? I'm an atheist so why would anything about this make me paranoid? I didn't know how many rabidly anti-Christians there were until I came to this site. It still amazes me the amount of time non-believers spend trying to convert Christians to their way of thinking. They still have the nerve to say they are the live and let live segment. The left has deluded themselves thinking religion has nothing to do with the way Democrat politicians vote on the issues. If they had the sense to look up the voting records of those they elected to office they would see that. Do some research and see how both sides vote on gay marriage and abortion issues once they get into office. Stop concentrating on what they do or don't say during their campaign speeches when they are telling people what they want to hear.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Paranoia? I'm an atheist so why would anything about this make me paranoid? I didn't know how many rabidly anti-Christians there were until I came to this site. It still amazes me the amount of time non-believers spend trying to convert Christians to their way of thinking. They still have the nerve to say they are the live and let live segment. The left has deluded themselves thinking religion has nothing to do with the way Democrat politicians vote on the issues. If they had the sense to look up the voting records of those they elected to office they would see that. Do some research and see how both sides vote on gay marriage and abortion issues once they get into office. Stop concentrating on what they do or don't say during their campaign speeches when they are telling people what they want to hear.

You seem to have missed or ignored my point. My point is that the Right-Wing GOP made an active choice to mobilize the christian population (many of who would naturally vote Democrat) and there is now a backlash and the GOP is suffering for been seen to pander to the more extreme fringe of the Christian Right. This has little to do with religion and lots to do with cynical politics.

I don't care if you are a christian or not and I don't want to change you into me in the slightest way - that is more paranoia on your part.

There is a persistent belief that anyone else but Christians would stoop to proselytize, there is a confusion regarding discussion of points of fact with an attempt top convert. Projection is what I see.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 19, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[Leonardo]

I think people just might be growing tired of empty promises.

All promises are empty by definition. Nobody should vote according to what people say they may do, but on what they have done. Past performance - in this particular instance - is the only reliable indicator of any future performance.

[eight bits]

PA

Having morals that were influenced by Christian thought does not make a person a Christian.

Yes, "having" is a bit vague. "Living according to," however, makes the problem more urgent. Suppose that a person has accepted and implemented, so fas as they were able, the teachings imputed to Jesus of Galilee, and strove to correct their behavior if and when they found themselves to have fallen short. It is not obvious that that isn't living a Christian life, and it is hardly an abuse of the language to call a person who lives a Christian life, knowing of the Christian origin of their perspective on life, a "Christian."

"Being a follower," then, has a parallel vagueness. What is being a follower of Jesus, if living your life according to (your understanding of) Jesus' teachings isn't enough?

"Believing in" is also vague. Not believe what about Jesus at all? With roughly two billion plain-language Christians in the world, it's a safe bet that there are at least a few million incompatble versions of Jesus out there.

If you don't believe in Jesus at all but were baptised as a Catholic, you can be a Catholic but you CANNOT be a Christian.

Putting it in CAPS doesn't help. This is what being a Christian meant for a thousand years. The orthodox churches of any size which were not Roman Catholic nevertheless agreed about the role of baptism as the means of conferring membership in their churches.

Can I be a Buddhist and claim that the way to enlightenment is through hedonism?

Why not? Actually, I'll think you'll find that Buddhism is often described as a middle way that balances asceticism and hedonism. No doubt, there are lively discussions to be had about where the balance is to be struck. I can't be the only one who sees the myth-or-incident of Sujata as offering insight into at least some strands of Buddhist thought about the nature of enlightenment and bodily pleasure.

You cannot change my mind by arguing that I am not the arbiter of who is and is not a Christian.

Obviously not. It is simply a fact, and not an "argument" of any kind, that you are not the arbiter of who is and is not a Christian. Changing your mind is not the reason why I write.

Edited May 19, 2015 by eight bits

[Michelle]

You seem to have missed or ignored my point. My point is that the Right-Wing GOP made an active choice to mobilize the christian population (many of who would naturally vote Democrat) and there is now a backlash and the GOP is suffering for been seen to pander to the more extreme fringe of the Christian Right. This has little to do with religion and lots to do with cynical politics.

I don't care if you are a christian or not and I don't want to change you into me in the slightest way - that is more paranoia on your part.

There is a persistent belief that anyone else but Christians would stoop to proselytize, there is a confusion regarding discussion of points of fact with an attempt top convert. Projection is what I see.

Br Cornelius

The first bolded is delusional and lack of reading comrehension on the second. Even Obama was anti gay marriage both times he was elected, but it didn't stop hard core Democrats from voting for him. Of course, they didn't look at his voting record or didn't care as long as a Democrat elected.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Paranoia.

Br Cornelius

[Michelle]

Paranoia.

Br Cornelius

Facts.

[KariW]

All promises are empty by definition. Nobody should vote according to what people say they may do, but on what they have done. Past performance - in this particular instance - is the only reliable indicator of any future performance.

Very well put Leonardo! I don't judge a person by their words, but by their actions!

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Facts.

A liberal principle is to expect equality for all. it would be prity darn odd if they were against equal rights to marriage, and what President Obama thinks on the subject is a matter of his own personal consciences.

Those are the facts Michelle.

Br Cornelius

[Michelle]

A liberal principle is to expect equality for all. it would be prity darn odd if they were against equal rights to marriage, and what President Obama thinks on the subject is a matter of his own personal consciences.

Those are the facts Michelle.

Br Cornelius

ABC broke into its daytime lineup May 9, 2012, to announce a historic shift: the president of the United States declaring his personal support for gay marriage.

"I've been going through an evolution on this issue," President Barack Obama told ABC News.

Indeed.

While the president has consistently supported civil rights for gay couples — peppering his comments with specifics such as hospital visitation, transfer of property and Social Security benefits — his discussion of marriage has differed. He’s called same-sex marriage unstrategic, against his religious beliefs, and something that should be in the hands of churches rather than government.

cont...

http://www.politifac...t-gay-marriage/

Funny when a conservative is against gay marriage but for civil unions they are just flat out wrong, bigoted and a religious fanatic.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Michelle

[Guest Br Cornelius]

He represents his party and the people.

Get over it Michelle.

Br Cornelius

[Davros of Skaro]

Survey or not, I am going to get a Shirt with "Leviticus 14" printed on it.There're plenty of puffed Chests with a Crucifix hanging off them in my Neck of the Woods.

[KariW]

Getting your history from Faux News? You mean back in the good old days when you couldn't feed them all, you would take the newborn out and leave it to die.

No, but I am a big supporter of practicing celibacy if you can't afford to take care of the children you produce. Just goes with personal responsibility. Who would do that to a child - bring it into a world and not be able to provide for it? Seems very cruel to me - Just my opinion.

Or back in the 50's when women would sometime carry a dead child until it went septic inside her, because abortion was illegal.

Not sure if you even read my post - I did say I agree with abortion to save the life of mother.

Or back in the 60's when my brother, who worked a the morgue, told me about all the young women who came in, because of back street abortions.

Sometimes young women make bad decisions, and the reality of this world is that sometimes you have to pay the ultimate price for those decisions. Most of the time, with the exception of rape, it comes down to personal choices & responsibility.

Abortion is a women's health issue, it is between a woman and her doctor.

IMO, It also involves the human rights of the unborn "sentient" child, and the father. But when it comes down to health issues, or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, she should have the final say - period!

If conservatives have their way women will be reduced to the status of broodmares.

I don't personally know any conservatives that wants this. Getting your info from MSNBC? TIt for Tat! LOL!

I am a conservative who believes that women shouldn't be having children they can't afford, and I have very little sympathy for others who expect me to pay for their lack of personal responsibility. And it might surprise you that I also have no problem with most contraceptives, as long as I'm not expected to pay for it. I do know a lot of conservatives that feel the same way. Just want to set the record straight.

Perhaps we need to stay on topic, and should discuss this in another thread.

[Michelle]

He represents his party and the people.

Get over it Michelle.

Br Cornelius

Now that he's flip flopped on gay marriage he's a step closer to representing this particular person.

[Occult1]

Even Obama was anti gay marriage both times he was elected, but it didn't stop hard core Democrats from voting for him. Of course, they didn't look at his voting record or didn't care as long as a Democrat elected.

I suspect there was a bit of a political strategy in Obama's 'opposition' of same-sex marriage in 2008. I think many liberal democrats realized hat his position on this issue was far from cast in concrete and that many of his policies were still progressive anyway so as to make him an excellent candidate. As I said, I think his 'oppositon' to same-sex marriage was to consolidate the vote from the conservative fringe of the Democratic Party, especially in the Southern states.

Edited May 19, 2015 by samus