# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Iraq fallout: Christianity is  being wiped out of America?

## Liberty Star

While our immediate attention spans are tied up with sequential crisis like swine flu, housing meltdown/severe economic recession, Katrina hurricane etc, another powerful change taking place is gradual secularization/de-Christianization across America. A radical shift in US policies is underway and "Christian" leaders have been for the most part sidelined with little to no influence in Washington policy making. 

Some noteable milestones that have followed Iraq war in rapid succession:


- First time in US history, son of an African Arab muslim man has been elected to the White House, a man whose Christian faith is doubted by many including some in his own party (such as Hillary "as far as I know he's a christian" Clinton)

- Christian Right/Republican party has been pushed almost to political oblivion with little to no access to the White House and policy making 

- US President repeatedly declares that America is not a Christian nation

- State after State is passing laws to legalize homosexual marriage.  Abortion was already legal in many if not all states

- US military is expected to soon lift ban on openly homosexual persons serving

- A small part of current US administration is Christian


Is this all a "blowback" against evangelicals, Baptist Convention and Christians at large who had sent famous "Land letter" to Bush to declare pre-emptive  Iraq invasion as a "just war" and supported that war?   





> The best example of this is the Iraq war. Evangelicals in America were the war's most ardent supporters. In 2002, an open letter written by a number of Evangelical leaders was published that gave their explicit support for the war. The signatories included Bill Bright, James Kennedy, Charles Colson and Richard Land. It is known as the "Land letter" since Richard Land was its original writer. The text of the Land letter can be found at Wikisource.
> 
> *The Land letter was an attempt to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. It outlined what it thought was the biblical basis for a "Just war", and attempted to justify an American attack on Iraq from a Christian point of view.*
> 
> *The Land letter was a watershed in American Evangelicalism, and it will go down in history as one of the movement's greatest and most damaging mistakes.*


http://one-salient-oversight.blogspo...-on-their.html

http://broughton.ca/bob-broughtons-b...nu-26/42-satan


Or such events are God's way of communicating to us as  Pastor Hagee would put it?

Or all these developments have some other catalyst unrelated to Iraqi freedom?  

What is your view.


EDIT:
To present a more balanced view since this question has been raised in one of the sources linked above:




> Do Evangelicals have blood on their hands?


Here is one of the dominant evangelical views that articulates a case for Iraq war in a narration that represents  a beautiful nexus of Religion and Politics in America in recent years.  This fantastic pastor who has rubbed shoulders with such distinguished political leaders as McCain, Lieberman, Santorum is a sweetheart of many neocons one the one hand and has been called Osama Bin Laden of Christianity by libs OTOH  makes the case for spreading God's prophetic word and Jesus' message   through Iraq war:

YouTube - John Hagee: Bush is the Messiah (2/4)

----------


## Kludge

Perhaps the "statistics" about the decline of Christianity in the US are true?

Too bad it's coming at a time of unprecedented increase in the size of government. Atheists will probably be blamed if the Jews aren't.

What's with gay-hating? (the "African Arab" mention was dubious, too)

----------


## RSLudlum

Interesting that MLK said that God would strike down any nation that thought it was to be the policeman of the world.

"Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as His divine messianic force to be -- a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America: 'You are too arrogant! If you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power"

clip:  http://music.ibiblio.org/pub/multime...ing/King10.mp3

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Washington and Jefferson were both deists and elected pres (I'm not interested in arguing about the factuality of that, btw-I've read enough history to have an informed opinion), so I see no "threat" to Christianity by simply having a non-Christian pres.

----------


## idiom

Pastor Hagee Renounced Christ as the Christ. FYI.

It doesn't matter much. God won't punish America until there are less than 10 Orthodox Jews.

Or something.

----------


## Liberty Star

Kludge, these are objective observations about what is taking place in America right now with some questions on this ongoing transformation.  How in the world could anyone read hatred for any sexual orientation from any of that?  
Do you disagree with any of the observations/deducations made?

----------


## canadian4ronpaul

this is kind of stupid considering the christian right was just in power for 8 years.  the fact that republicans arent in power anymore has nothing to do with the fact that they are christian and being pushed aside...its because they $#@!ing suck and were destroying the country.  since when is america a christian nation anyways?  I thought it was a free nation first and foremost.

----------


## Liberty Star

> Interesting that MLK said that God would strike down any nation that thought it was to be the policeman of the world.
> 
> "Don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as His divine messianic force to be -- a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America: 'You are too arrogant! If you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power"
> 
> clip:  http://music.ibiblio.org/pub/multime...ing/King10.mp3


Very interesting, did not know that.  Overwhelming majority of Americans is believers/christians but faith in America has plates shifting underneath its traditional foundations.





> Washington and Jefferson were both deists and elected pres (I'm not interested in arguing about the factuality of that, btw-I've read enough history to have an informed opinion), so I see no "threat" to Christianity by simply having a non-Christian pres.


Above observation related to "de-Christianization" changes with longterm consequences without going into their merits or demerits and was not intended to be read as a threat to Christianity itself.  I was trying to explore causes behind these radical changes.

----------


## Kludge

> How in the world could anyone read hatred for any sexual orientation from any of that?


"- US military is expected to soon lift ban on openly homosexual persons serving" is listed as though it is anti-Christian (implied from this earlier line: "A radical shift in US policies is underway and *"Christian" leaders have been for the most part sidelined with little to no influence in Washington policy making.*").

I don't understand the objection to "- US President repeatedly declares that America is not a Christian nation" either, but I imagine there are already many topics on that.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Washington and Jefferson were both deists and elected pres (I'm not interested in arguing about the factuality of that, btw-I've read enough history to have an informed opinion), so I see no "threat" to Christianity by simply having a non-Christian pres.


Yeah, I'm sure your not interesting in arguing that.

Here's an epic thread with - oddly enough, you quoted in the very first post.  You have never posted any sources to refute any of it.

Both men served in their churches their entire lives.  And by the way, you don't get to do that unless you become a member and affirm your believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

The Founder's weren't deists
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=173113

----------


## Liberty Star

> "- US military is expected to soon lift ban on openly homosexual persons serving" is listed as though it is anti-Christian (implied from this earlier line: "A radical shift in US policies is underway and *"Christian" leaders have been for the most part sidelined with little to no influence in Washington policy making.*").
> 
> I don't understand the objection to "- US President repeatedly declares that America is not a Christian nation" either, but I imagine there are already many topics on that.



Policies that Christians leaders/GOP have very recently championed passionately are being reversed rapidly, I had not made consent/objection part of the original question, where did you read that? (though that could be an interesting discussion itself).  

If you agree with the observations made, questions was about catalyst behind these seemingly radical changes.  I'm open for any discussion but we have to be clear about what we are discussing.

----------


## Liberty Star

> Pastor Hagee Renounced Christ as the Christ. FYI.
> 
> It doesn't matter much. God won't punish America until there are less than 10 Orthodox Jews.
> 
> Or something.


I personally never saw folks like Hagee as true Christians but I was adressing popular or at least popular in the recent past perceptions, particularly among some evangelicals.   




> this is kind of stupid considering the christian right was just in power for 8 years.  the fact that republicans arent in power anymore has nothing to do with the fact that they are christian and being pushed aside...its because they $#@!ing suck and were destroying the country.  since when is america a christian nation anyways?  I thought it was a free nation first and foremost.




Evangeliacls were only about 25% voting base ( more than 75% of them  voted GOP lately), this discussion assumes some beliefs that are probably not shared by many Libertarians but are by many Americans.

In 2006, 80% of Churcg going Americans supported Iraq war when support among non-Church going Americans was at  40%.  


It's those relationships and event results  that seem quite intriguing and make this an interesting question in that context imo.

----------


## idiom

If the Christian leaders being 'sidelined' are people like Huckabee and Bush, then horray for sidelining.

Christian Leaders like Ron Paul are shining forth more than ever.

----------


## Liberty Star

> If the Christian leaders being 'sidelined' are people like Huckabee and Bush, then horray for sidelining.
> 
> Christian Leaders like Ron Paul are shining forth more than ever.



Just few Baptist/Evanglical  leaders like these losing a voice in DC will not be  too major an issue in itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_letter


Main phenomenon I was referring to was America becoming "less Christian", in policies as well as symbolism.  

Leaders like RP dont make religion part of foreign policy or national policy but advocate  princples like allowing States freedom to handle issues like abortion/homosexuality.  But that can't be said for majority of Republicans. This is in that broader context.

----------


## Reason

> "Christian" leaders have been for the most part sidelined with little to no influence in Washington policy making.


Good.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Good.


Yes, too bad you just sidelined every one of our founding fathers too 

*This* is the problem with our country btw.  It isn't a government problem.  The people are bad.  And their responsible for the government being what it is.

----------


## virgil47

What we are witnessing is the rise of humanism. It has been taught or I should say force fed to our children for about 40 years now. We are now seeing the fruits of the seeds planted by the elitest humanists. These folks do not believe in Christianity and in fact believe Christians to be their mortal enemies. They will do everything in their power to marginalize Christianity because that is the only way they can take and hold power.

----------


## Reason

You don't need religion for morality.

----------


## BeFranklin

> You don't need religion for morality.


You just made an obnoxious post that it was "good" that Christian leaders, all Christians, were being sidelined in politics (if true), and I pointed out that what you said was good would have eliminated every founder this country had in the Revolution.

----------


## kpitcher

Considering the number of viral emails I've gotten with this thread's basic premise this must be a new concentrated effort. Sadly most of those emails were thinly veiled religious fear mongering. Glad that isn't the case on RPF.

But I do have to comment that while I agree that many of our founders were Christian their perspectives kept changing throughout their lives. 

For example, Jefferson and Adams either got more enlightened or cynical in their later years, depending on how you view it.

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Jefferson in a letter to John Adams (4/11/1823)

Also don't forget the treaty of Tripoli's "As the government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion" which was unanimously approved.

Of course that's the best part of Libertarian policies and having religion out of government - it doesn't matter the religious belief as long as there is a belief in the constitution.  As Hall said describing Voltaire " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Although figuring out how to keep our rights and freedoms protected is going to take some work.

----------


## Kludge

> You just made an obnoxious post that it was "good" that Christian leaders, all Christians, were being sidelined in politics (if true), and I pointed out that what you said was good would have eliminated every founder this country had in the Revolution.


I think he was noting the quotations around "Christian" in the OP. I was under the impression that CR himself was some type of Theist.

----------


## BeFranklin

> For example, Jefferson and Adams either got more enlightened or cynical in their later years, depending on how you view it.
> 
> "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams
> 
> “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
> Jefferson in a letter to John Adams (4/11/1823)
> 
> Also don't forget the treaty of Tripoli's "As the government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion" which was unanimously approved.
> .


The last is a forgery.  And most of the quotes going around atheist blogs are either made up or being taken out of context, with the possible exception of some letters published after Jefferson died by his atheistic nephew who made a lot of money doing so .  

*Post links to original letters* and we'll put them in one of those three piles.  Thanks, but I've posted several bookloads of original sources (not out of place quotes) on these forums, and every one one of these have been this way.

Some other information about Jefferson.  Went to church his entire life.  Started worship services in the capitol.  Designed the architecture of his home church.  Passed several laws he wrote quoting from the bible in 1776, including marriage and sabbath keeping.

----------


## BeFranklin

> For example, Jefferson and Adams either got more enlightened or cynical in their later years, depending on how you view it.
> 
> "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams


This is the actual quote in context.  It says the exact opposite when not snipped.  This type of lying is systematic and intentional - there is no way this quote could have been taken out of context without it being intentionally done so by someone and spread.  This is very common.  You are being lied to.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fWt...22&output=text (fixed link to go to 1st not 2nd page)



> TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.
> 
> Quincy, 19 April, 1817.
> 
> My loving and beloved friend, Pickering, has been pleased to inform the world, that I have " few friends." I wanted to whip the rogue, and I had it in my power, if it had been in my will to do it, till the blood came. But all my real friends, as I thought them, with Dexter and Gray at their head, insisted that I should not say a word; that " nothing that such a person could write, would do me the least injury;" that " it would betray the constitution and the government, if a President, out or in, should enter into a newspaper controversy with one of his ministers, whom he had removed from his office, in justification of himself for that removal or any thing else." And they talked a great deal about " the dignity" of the office of President, which I do not find that any other persons^ public or private, regard very much.
> 
> Nevertheless, I fear that Mr. Pickering's information is too true. It is impossible that any man should run such a gauntlet as I have been driven through, and have many friends at last. This " all who know me, know," though I cannot say "who love me, tell." I have, however, either friends, who wish to amuse and solace my old age, or enemies, who mean to heap coals of fire on my head, and kill me with kindness, for they overwhelm me with books from all quarters, enough to obfuscate all eyes, and smother and stifle all human understanding — Chateaubriand, Grimm, Tucker, Dupuis, La Harpe, Sismondi, Eustace, a new translation of Herodotus, by Beloe, with more notes than text. What shall I do with all this lumber? I make my "woman-kind," as the Antiquary expresses it, read to me all the English; but, as they will not read the French, I am obliged to excruciate my eyes to read it myself. And all to what purpose ? I verily believe I was as wise and good seventy years ago, as I am now. At that period Lemuel Bryant was my parish priest, and Joseph Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Lemuel was a jocular and liberal scholar and divine, Joseph a scholar and a gentleman, but a bigoted Episcopalian of the school of Bishop Saunders and Dr. Hicks; a downright, conscientious, passive obedience man in church and state. The parson and the pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day, when the schoolmaster had been more than commonly fanatical, and declared, " if he were a monarch, he would have but one religion in his dominions," the parson coolly replied, " Cleverly! you would be the best man in the world, if you had no religion." *Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out,* " this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there was no religion in it!!!" *But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company— I mean hell*. So far from believing in the total and universal depravity of human nature, I believe there is no individual totally depraved. The most abandoned scoundrel that ever existed, never yet wholly extinguished his conscience, and, while conscience remains, there is some religion. Popes, Je- suists, and Sorbonnists, and Inquisitors, have some conscience and some religion. So had Marius and Sylla. Coesar, Catiline, and Antony, and Augustus, had not much more, let Virgil and Horace say what they will. What shall we think of Virgil and Horace, Sallust, Quintilian, Pliny, and even Tacitus? And even Cicero, Brutus, and Seneca ? Pompey I leave out of the question, as a mere politician and a soldier. Every one of these great creatures has left indelible marks of conscience, and, consequently, of religion, though every one of them has left abundant proofs of profligate violations of their conscience, by their little and great passions and paltry interests.
> 
> The vast prospect of mankind, which these books have passed in review before me, from the most ancient records, histories, traditions, and fables that remain to us, to the present day, has sickened my very soul, and almost reconciled me to Swift's travels among the Yahoos. Yet I never can be a misanthrope. **** sum. I must hate myself before I can hate my fellow- men, and that J cannot and will not do. No, I will not hate any of them, base, brutal, and devilish as some of them have been to me. From the bottom of my soul I pity my fellow- men. Fears and terrors appear to have produced a universal credulity. Fears of calamities in life, and punishments after death, seem to have possessed the souls of all men. But fears of pain and death here do not seem to have been so unconquerable as fears of what is to come hereafter. Priests, hierophants, popes, despots, emperors, kings, princes, nobles, have been as credulous as shoe-blacks, boots, and kitchen-scullions. The former seem to have believed in their divine rights as sincerely as the latter. Auto-da-fcs in Spain and Portugal, have been celebrated with as good faith as excommunications have been refused' in Philadelphia. How it is possible that mankind should submit to be governed as they have been,'is to me an inscrutable mystery. How they could bear to be taxed to build the temple of Diana at Ephesus, the pyramids of Egypt, Saint Peter's at Rome, Notre Dame at Paris, St. Paul's in London, with a million ct ccteras, when my navy yards and my quasi army made such a popular clamor, I know not. Yet my peccadilloes never excited such a rage as the late compensation law!!!
> ...


I'm only looking up one today.  This takes a lot of time.

----------


## idiom

Very similar to the supposed "God is dead" quote of Nietzches...

----------


## Liberty Star

Not to worry, even if  America is becoming less Christian, we could make up for it by trying to convert some Afghans and Iraqis and then those Afghans/Iraqi converts can come to America to increase  Christianiaty here:





> *U.S. denies letting troops convert Afghans*
> 
>  By Peter Graff Peter Graff – Mon May 4, 5:59 am ET
> 
> KABUL (Reuters) – The U.S. military denied Monday it has allowed soldiers to try to convert Afghans to Christianity, after a television network showed pictures of soldiers with bibles translated into local languages.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090504/..._proselytising

----------


## He Who Pawns

Religious people are the biggest threat to the world.  Just look at W Bush and Bin Laden.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah, I'm sure your not interesting in arguing that.
> 
> Here's an epic thread with - oddly enough, you quoted in the very first post.  You have never posted any sources to refute any of it.
> 
> Both men served in their churches their entire lives.  And by the way, you don't get to do that unless you become a member and affirm your believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
> 
> The Founder's weren't deists
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=173113


You really need to stop trolling and clogging up threads.  I have an informed opinion (I made it patently obvious that it was my opinion to anyone who can read English), and I'm not interested in a debate about it.  Go be divisive on another site, please.

----------


## angelatc

This oughta stir things back up.  YouTube - Muslim Demographics

----------


## idiom

angelatc, that stuff will rot your brain.

----------


## diggronpaul

> Religious people are the biggest threat to the world.  Just look at W Bush and Bin Laden.


I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading this comment.  Ugh.

----------


## BeFranklin

> You really need to stop trolling and clogging up threads.  I have an informed opinion (I made it patently obvious that it was my opinion to anyone who can read English), and I'm not interested in a debate about it.  Go be divisive on another site, please.


Hardly trolling.  When anyone resorts to using repeated assertion instead of facts about an issue I care about, I will continue to post the facts.

----------


## BeFranklin

No answer?  I'm kindof tired of Christianity being attacked by repeated assertions and made up quotes from so called freedom lovers, 
and on top of that 40 years ago this is what the sworn enemies of America from totataltarian/atheist countries were doing.  Odd.  





> For example, Jefferson and Adams either got more enlightened or cynical in their later years, depending on how you view it.
> 
> "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams


This is the actual quote in context.  It says the exact opposite when not snipped.  This type of lying is systematic and intentional - there is no way this quote could have been taken out of context without it being intentionally done so by someone and spread.  This is very common.  You are being lied to.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fWt...22&output=text (fixed link to go to 1st not 2nd page)



> TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.
> 
> Quincy, 19 April, 1817.
> 
> My loving and beloved friend, Pickering, has been pleased to inform the world, that I have " few friends." I wanted to whip the rogue, and I had it in my power, if it had been in my will to do it, till the blood came. But all my real friends, as I thought them, with Dexter and Gray at their head, insisted that I should not say a word; that " nothing that such a person could write, would do me the least injury;" that " it would betray the constitution and the government, if a President, out or in, should enter into a newspaper controversy with one of his ministers, whom he had removed from his office, in justification of himself for that removal or any thing else." And they talked a great deal about " the dignity" of the office of President, which I do not find that any other persons^ public or private, regard very much.
> 
> Nevertheless, I fear that Mr. Pickering's information is too true. It is impossible that any man should run such a gauntlet as I have been driven through, and have many friends at last. This " all who know me, know," though I cannot say "who love me, tell." I have, however, either friends, who wish to amuse and solace my old age, or enemies, who mean to heap coals of fire on my head, and kill me with kindness, for they overwhelm me with books from all quarters, enough to obfuscate all eyes, and smother and stifle all human understanding — Chateaubriand, Grimm, Tucker, Dupuis, La Harpe, Sismondi, Eustace, a new translation of Herodotus, by Beloe, with more notes than text. What shall I do with all this lumber? I make my "woman-kind," as the Antiquary expresses it, read to me all the English; but, as they will not read the French, I am obliged to excruciate my eyes to read it myself. And all to what purpose ? I verily believe I was as wise and good seventy years ago, as I am now. At that period Lemuel Bryant was my parish priest, and Joseph Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Lemuel was a jocular and liberal scholar and divine, Joseph a scholar and a gentleman, but a bigoted Episcopalian of the school of Bishop Saunders and Dr. Hicks; a downright, conscientious, passive obedience man in church and state. The parson and the pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day, when the schoolmaster had been more than commonly fanatical, and declared, " if he were a monarch, he would have but one religion in his dominions," the parson coolly replied, " Cleverly! you would be the best man in the world, if you had no religion." *Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out,* " this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there was no religion in it!!!" *But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company— I mean hell*. So far from believing in the total and universal depravity of human nature, I believe there is no individual totally depraved. The most abandoned scoundrel that ever existed, never yet wholly extinguished his conscience, and, while conscience remains, there is some religion. Popes, Je- suists, and Sorbonnists, and Inquisitors, have some conscience and some religion. So had Marius and Sylla. Coesar, Catiline, and Antony, and Augustus, had not much more, let Virgil and Horace say what they will. What shall we think of Virgil and Horace, Sallust, Quintilian, Pliny, and even Tacitus? And even Cicero, Brutus, and Seneca ? Pompey I leave out of the question, as a mere politician and a soldier. Every one of these great creatures has left indelible marks of conscience, and, consequently, of religion, though every one of them has left abundant proofs of profligate violations of their conscience, by their little and great passions and paltry interests.
> 
> The vast prospect of mankind, which these books have passed in review before me, from the most ancient records, histories, traditions, and fables that remain to us, to the present day, has sickened my very soul, and almost reconciled me to Swift's travels among the Yahoos. Yet I never can be a misanthrope. **** sum. I must hate myself before I can hate my fellow- men, and that J cannot and will not do. No, I will not hate any of them, base, brutal, and devilish as some of them have been to me. From the bottom of my soul I pity my fellow- men. Fears and terrors appear to have produced a universal credulity. Fears of calamities in life, and punishments after death, seem to have possessed the souls of all men. But fears of pain and death here do not seem to have been so unconquerable as fears of what is to come hereafter. Priests, hierophants, popes, despots, emperors, kings, princes, nobles, have been as credulous as shoe-blacks, boots, and kitchen-scullions. The former seem to have believed in their divine rights as sincerely as the latter. Auto-da-fcs in Spain and Portugal, have been celebrated with as good faith as excommunications have been refused' in Philadelphia. How it is possible that mankind should submit to be governed as they have been,'is to me an inscrutable mystery. How they could bear to be taxed to build the temple of Diana at Ephesus, the pyramids of Egypt, Saint Peter's at Rome, Notre Dame at Paris, St. Paul's in London, with a million ct ccteras, when my navy yards and my quasi army made such a popular clamor, I know not. Yet my peccadilloes never excited such a rage as the late compensation law!!!
> ...

----------


## angelatc

> angelatc, that stuff will rot your brain.


I know, right?  My Mom sent it to me, and the timing was just right. I couldn't help myself.  Consider yourself lucky I don't post all the cute kitten pictures she sends.

----------


## Liberty Star

> Religious people are the biggest threat to the world.  Just look at W Bush and Bin Laden.


It's tempting to think that but statistically I'm not sure if that would hold up if we consider all the killing done by atheists of the world as well. Human fanaticism and blood thirst seems to come in numerous  packages ideologically speaking.





> *This* is the problem with our country btw.  *It isn't a government problem.  The people are bad.*  And their responsible for the government being what it is.



I agree, gov is a reflection of the people.

I tend to agree with your position that founding fathers had religious grounding. But I don't believe that evangelical radicals who cheerled Iraq war in any way represented Founding fathers or Christianity.  Hopefully you'll agree with that.

----------


## Bman

You know what's truly great about Ron Paul.  He only talks about religion when directly asked, and never ties it to his political reasoning for making a choice.

You know why that is so beautiful?

Because it can work for everyone.

Obama is a self-proclaimed Christian, to say otherwise about him is just follishness.  I see people saying that founding fathers were christian.  Well why do you say that?  Answer: Because they said so.

Like it or not Obama is a christian.  Just not one from your church.  And there lies the problem with most christian sects.  Christians of other churches aren't Christian at all.  It's just utter nonsense.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Christians that have been duped into advocating preemptive war are essentially no longer following the teachings of Christ. In that sense, Christianity is being "wiped out" by subversion of the religion from within (and also with encouragement from individuals outside of Christianity).

----------


## BlackTerrel

> - First time in US history, son of an African Arab muslim man has been elected to the White House, a man whose Christian faith is doubted by many including some in his own party (such as Hillary "as far as I know he's a christian" Clinton)


Who cares what religion his father is?  Obama is a Christian.




> - Christian Right/Republican party has been pushed almost to political oblivion with little to no access to the White House and policy making


Shocker.  This happened when Clinton was elected too.




> - US President repeatedly declares that America is not a Christian nation


It's not.




> - A small part of current US administration is Christian


Why don't you break down the administration and say who is Christian and who isn't?  I'd imagine you'd find Christians taking up the vast majority of positions.

----------


## Liberty Star

> Christians that have been duped into advocating preemptive war are essentially no longer following the teachings of Christ. In that sense, Christianity is being "wiped out" by subversion of the religion from within (and also with encouragement from individuals outside of Christianity).





> You know what's truly great about Ron Paul.  He only talks about religion when directly asked, and never ties it to his political reasoning for making a choice.
> 
> You know why that is so beautiful?
> 
> Because it can work for everyone.
> 
> Obama is a self-proclaimed Christian, to say otherwise about him is just follishness.  I see people saying that founding fathers were christian.  Well why do you say that?  Answer: Because they said so.
> 
> Like it or not Obama is a christian.  Just not one from your church.  And there lies the problem with most christian sects.  Christians of other churches aren't Christian at all.  It's just utter nonsense.


I dont disagree with that at all. 






> Who cares what religion his father is?  Obama is a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Shocker.  This happened when Clinton was elected too.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not.
> ...


Many cared including many on the Republican Right and Left. 

Do you disgaree with statement that America is rapidly being "de-Christioned" since Iraqi freedom war and departure of Bush?

  If majority of Obama administration supports legalizing open homosexuality/sodomy in US civil and military societies, abortion etc, would you consideur them "Christian"?  

Obama's winning formula was packaged as a  "punishment" for pro war radical Christian Right/neocons etc and an "apology/appeasement" to rest of the world; his election is a direct result of Iraqi freedom operation.

----------


## BeFranklin

> I tend to agree with your position that founding fathers had religious grounding. But I don't believe that evangelical radicals who cheerled Iraq war in any way represented Founding fathers or Christianity.  Hopefully you'll agree with that.


Yes I do.  From my perspective, these leaders are part of an  eccemunical movement from the 70s (include all churches protestant and roman catholics), to make all churches "one big church".  There is some bad legacy as the result.

The founders weren't for state run churches in the political realm.  They also didn't appear to think too much of unified one big church in the social realm either.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Christians of other churches aren't Christian at all.  It's just utter nonsense.


Never seen anyone claim that for any of the mainstream churches that believe the gospel.  The doctrine for what you
need to be saved is in the bible.

----------


## idiom

Its not being "de-Christianized", its just moving 'left' socially pretty quickly. But its not becoming more or less authoritiarian.

There are plenty of Christians on the extreme left who are quite happy to let gays be gay and to re-distribute wealth.

----------


## AuH20

YouTube - Bezmenov on demoralization in America

----------


## Mesogen

> YouTube - Bezmenov on demoralization in America


It's immoral to wear those slacks.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Many cared including many on the Republican Right and Left.


This about Obama's dad's religion: Maybe they cared but it's stupid.  Obama is a Christian, the religion of his father is irrelevant.  




> Do you disgaree with statement that America is rapidly being "de-Christioned" since Iraqi freedom war and departure of Bush?


Yes I do.  




> If majority of Obama administration supports legalizing open homosexuality/sodomy in US civil and military societies, abortion etc, would you consideur them "Christian"?


I allow people to self identify.  If they say they're Christian then they are - otherwise who would decide?  You?

----------


## Liberty Star

> Its not being "de-Christianized", its just moving 'left' socially pretty quickly. But its not becoming more or less authoritiarian.
> 
> There are plenty of Christians on the extreme left who are quite happy to let gays be gay and to re-distribute wealth.


There is a lbig Left swing  going on too but its natural parallel is further divorcing of traditional Christian/"Republican family values" from state policies.  

Christians/Evangelicals/Rove  had made "gay marriage" a big issue during Iraq war  in 04 election and opposed legalizing homosexuality/sodomy. This is what is happening immediately after Iraqi freedom that these same Church going Christians pushed for:




> *Gay Marriage Bill Passes DC Council* 
> By On Top Magazine Staff 
> 
> May 05, 2009 The Washington D.C. Council gave its final approval to recognize legal gay marriages performed in other states and countries Tuesday, reports the AP.
> 
> 
> Nashuatelegraph.com: *State Senate passes gay marriage*
> Apr 29, 2009 ... State Senate passes gay marriage. By KEVIN LANDRIGAN, Staff Writer klandrigan@nashuatelegraph.com. CONCORD -- The State Senate endorsed ...
> http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/...99937/-1/XML15 - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
> ...






> This about Obama's dad's religion: Maybe they cared but it's stupid.  Obama is a Christian, the religion of his father is irrelevant.  
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes I do. * 
> 
> 
> 
> I allow people to self identify.  If they say they're Christian then they are - otherwise who would decide?  You?



It's not about what you or I believe, it's what significant part  of Christian Right/GOP base believes.  If you dont think traditional Christian values are being tossed out  around America at fast pace since Iraqi freedom, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

----------


## idiom

Hang on... Allowing people to get married is an attack on marriage?

The double-speak is so thick here...

----------


## Liberty Star

> Hang on... Allowing people to get married is an attack on marriage?
> 
> The double-speak is so thick here...


It's an attack on God, Christianity and Christian family values etc  and they will fight back if they could muster the strength.  Sadly, they have been driven out of places of power recently.

----------


## idiom

God can't muster the strength? Driven Out?

----------


## Liberty Star

> God can't muster the strength? Driven Out?


I meant God's men, his believers and evangelicals in America. I would include Karl Roves of the world in this category too who successfully engineered Bush 04 victory using gay marriage and Iraq war brilliantly to mobilize the Christian Right base.

----------


## TER

_And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?_  Luke 18:7-8

----------


## idiom

> I meant God's men, his believers and evangelicals in America. I would include Karl Roves of the world in this category too who successfully engineered Bush 04 victory using gay marriage and Iraq war brilliantly to mobilize the Christian Right base.


The exit polls showed that Christians voted for Bush in '04 primarily to deal with Abortion.

Bush then ignored abortion and used his 'Mandate' to run the country into the ground.

----------


## eOs

I hope Christianity is being wiped out of America and all over the world, just like Islam and any other faulty organized religious business institution. Good riddance.

----------


## TER

Christianity is not being wiped out of America but rather purified.  
Using the Name of the Lord to justify killing, theft, and tyranny is being exposed for the lie that it is and those who accept such notions in their hearts may label themselves Christians, but reject Christ from their hearts.  
This is the wheat being sifted from the chaff, a premonition of Judgment Day.

----------


## Liberty Star

> _And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
> 
> I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?_  Luke 18:7-8


I am bit confused by God's recent policies,  gonna have to take a "I don't know" or "who knows" stance on His forseeable future policies.

If we look at present day Christians' segment that supported occupation/bloodshed in Iraq and holy land, they seem to be trying to speed up things to ready the the place as landing strip for Jesus.  I'm only referring to extremist pro violence Christians here. 





> The exit polls showed that Christians voted for Bush in '04 primarily to deal with Abortion.
> 
> Bush then ignored abortion and used his 'Mandate' to run the country into the ground.


Did you mean partial birth abortion?  Buhs had no chance of changing abortion policy I thought:




> *Karl Rove says gay marriage won't be the issue in '08 that it was in '04*
> 
> For many voters, it’s an article of faith that political consultant Karl Rove orchestrated the 2004 ballot fight over same-sex marriage to help push conservatives to the polls. In the process, the theory goes, those voters helped George W. Bush win reelection.
> 
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...rove-same.html

----------


## Liberty Star

> I hope Christianity is being wiped out of America and all over the world, just like Islam and any other faulty organized religious business institution. Good riddance.


It maybe tempting to think because faith many times has been such a potent factor in everything including acts of violence and destruction.  Sometimes it seems that Religion is a dying force. But because it's such a powerful tool,  Religion will remain an essential  necessity for many many people probably for ever.






> Christianity is not being wiped out of America but rather purified.  
> Using the Name of the Lord to justify killing, theft, and tyranny is being exposed for the lie that it is and those who accept such notions in their hearts may label themselves Christians, but reject Christ from their hearts.  
> *This is the wheat being sifted from the chaff, a premonition of Judgment Day*.


Does that imply majority of Church going Christian population would be "chaff"?




> Friday, March 21, 2003
> 
> *Praise the Lord and George W. Bush*
> 
> By MARK TOOLEY
> GUEST COLUMNIST
> 
> According to Gallup, *Americans who attend church at least once a week support war to depose the Iraqi dictator by an almost 2-to-1 margin*. Americans who never attend church or say religion is not important to them are more evenly divided about the possibility of war.
> http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/113477_church21.shtml






> *Pew: Church-Goers Like Torture More* 
> 
> - The Atlantic Politics Channel
> 
> politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/pew_church-goers_like_torture_more.php

----------


## idiom

Bush could have made Abortion a state level issue at any time. But the votes were to keep a republican in power during the appointment of Justices as long as possible.

The Christian vote was pretty upset with the war even in 04.

----------


## Liberty Star

> Bush could have made Abortion a state level issue at any time. But the votes were to keep a republican in power during the appointment of Justices as long as possible.
> 
> The Christian vote was pretty upset with the war even in 04.


Did you mean majority of practising Christians ( those who attend Church regularly) was opposed to war?

That's not what opinion polling data suggests.

----------


## Liberty Star

How nicely Rummy exploited Bush's Christian faith by mixing Iraq war violence imagery with Lord's biblical messages:





> The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms:* “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.”*
> 
> This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: *“It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”* (To see these and more Bush-administration intelligence cover sheets, visit GQ.com’s exclusive slideshow).


http://men.style.com/gq/features/lan...d=content_9217

----------


## Brassmouth

> - First time in US history, son of an African Arab muslim man has been elected to the White House, a man whose Christian faith is doubted by many including some in his own party (such as Hillary "as far as I know he's a christian" Clinton)


...who....cares????




> - Christian Right/Republican party has been pushed almost to political oblivion with little to no access to the White House and policy making


Finally. Let's hope it stays like that, and that the Democrats won't be far behind them.




> - US President repeatedly declares that America is not a Christian nation


It's not...




> - State after State is passing laws to legalize homosexual marriage.  Abortion was already legal in many if not all states


About damn time. It's good to know more Americans are outgrowing their bigotry and superstition.




> - US military is expected to soon lift ban on openly homosexual persons serving


Well I can't say I approve of _anyone_ "serving" in the military. Still, I doubt many homosexuals will be itching to go die in a war.




> - A small part of current US administration is Christian


Not small enough for my tastes...

----------


## nickcoons

I don't know whether or not Christianity is fading in America.  I hope it is, as well as every other religious belief, and hopefully everywhere else in the world.  I await the day when we are enlightened to the point where we don't need imaginary friends.

For those extolling the virtues of faith, please understand the differences between faith and reason.

"Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code that's through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to moralityyou who have never known anybut to discover it."
- John Galt

----------


## nickcoons

> It's tempting to think that but statistically I'm not sure if that would hold up if we consider all the killing done by atheists of the world as well.


What history are you referencing?  All mass murders have been in the name of something supernatural, superstitious, religious.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> What history are you referencing?  All mass murders have been in the name of something supernatural, superstitious, religious.


^Bulls---!

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Hoxha etc.---were all militant atheists and the biggest mass murderers in history.

Sorry, but your revisionist history won't float here. It'll get flushed down the toilet where it belongs.

----------


## Conservative Christian

Partial list of confirmed atheists who collectively murdered well over one hundred million people in the 20th century alone:

Afghanistan-- Nur Muhammad Taraki, Babrak Kamal
Albania-- Enver Hoxha
Angola-- Agostinho Neto, José Eduardo dos Santos
Bulgaria-- Vulko Chervenkov, Todor Zhivkov
Cambodia-- Pol Pot, Heng Samrin
China-- Mao Tse-Tung, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintau
Cuba-- Fidel Castro
Czechoslovakia-- Klement Gottwald, Antonín Zápotocký, Antonín Novotný, Gustáv Husák
East Germany-- Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker
Ethiopia-- Tafari Benti, Mengistu Haile Mariam
French Republic-- Jean-Marie Collot dHerbois, Jacques Nicolas Billaud-Varenne
Greece-- Nikolaos Zachariadis
Hungary-- Mátyás Rákosi
Laos-- Kaysone Phomvihane, Khamtai Siphandone
Mongolia-- Khorloogiin Choibalsan, Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal
Mozambique-- Samora Machel
North Korea-- Kim il-Sung, Kim Jong-il
Poland-- Władysław Gomułka, Boleslaw Bierut
Romania-- Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolae Ceausescu
Soviet Union-- Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev
Spain-- Manuel Azaña, Francisco Largo Caballero
Vietnam-- Ho Chi Minh, Le Duan, Truong Chinh, Nguyen Van Linh, Do Muoi, Le Kha Phieu, Nong Duc Manh
Yugoslavia-- Josip Broz Tito

----------


## AutoDas

> ^Bulls---!
> 
> Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Hoxha etc.---were all militant atheists and the biggest mass murderers in history.
> 
> Sorry, but your revisionist history won't float here. It'll get flushed down the toilet where it belongs.


...all of whom believed in a supernatural power, were supersticious about collectivism, and religiously worshiped the state.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> ...all of whom believed in a supernatural power, were supersticious about collectivism, and religiously worshiped the state.


^Mere semantic hogwash.

They were all atheists, so please identify the "supernatural power" you claim they believed in.

Please provide solid evidence that they were "superstitious" about collectivism. You can't even spell the word properly, and you quite obviously are misusing it.

Please also provide evidence that they "religiously worshiped the state". Many atheist dictators throughout history merely see the state as a means to an end--total power. Nothing "religious" about that. Sheer speculation on your part.

Sorry, but your semantic nonsense doesn't float any better than Mr. Coon's.

----------


## PaulaGem

I was brought up attending a fundamentalist church and studied the Bible from before the time I could read (Sunday School).

As I got older I started reading C.S. Lewis.   I now disagree with some of his theological conclusions, but I found him inspiring and still recommend his books to others.   The application of logic to religious beliefs was a wonderful concept to me and I continued to study the Bible, applying the methods and concepts used to study other ancient cultures and religions.

I never really questioned the authority of the Bible until I reached middle age.   By then I had unconsciously started to ignore most of it and was focusing on the teachings of "Jesus".

God had opened a path for me to own my own business.  I started by selling stone chip necklaces to metaphysical bookstores.   Being a Christian, I never said "this stone is good for that" - because I didn't believe that sort of thing.   I did have a good eye though, and stores liked what I bought so they bought from me.   

The first time I was asked by a store owner if I could get pentacles, I was taken aback.  I had been taught from childhood that pentacles were a symbol of witchcraft and Satanism.  Still, I knew and trusted the store owner that was asking for them - we were of different religions, but we fellowshipped and shared Spiritual goals and concepts.  I prayed a quick one and I asked her about her beliefs and what the symbol meant to her.

I found nothing objectionable or evil in her answers.   I procured the symbol and before I became ill I sold pentacles to several hundred stores across the country, along with crosses, yin yang, star of David, crescent moons, Oms, and many other religious symbols.

In 2000 I was defending some of my pagan friends on line and someone said - "You're a Gnostic!!!".    I didn't even know what a gnostic was at the time, so I started researching the subject and discover that yes, I was a gnostic Christian.  

My Gnostic beliefs came from studying the teachings of Yeshua in the canonized scriptures of the Bible.   I do not believe the entire Bible is "God breathed".   I find some of the opinions of Paul concerning women and social rules to be just plain silly.   I understand the ties of culture between the Code of Hammurabi and Leviticus.   I see echoes of the Isis myth and Mithraism in the mythology concerning the life and death of Jesus.  When I first heard the lectures of Joseph Campbell, I said  "Of course, it's all so obvious".   

I am a Christian because my path to Spirit is influenced primarily by the teachings of Yeshua, a Jewish Rabbi that was anointed of God,  a Mosiach, which is translated in the Bible as Christ. 

As a follower of Yeshua's teachings I am inspired to respect the religious beliefs of others just as he did.   Yeshua taught to Jews, and most of the recorded teachings are from that perspective,   but just once, the canonical Gospels record an encounter with a woman of a different religion, a Samaritan he met by a well one day.

Samaritans were to the Jews as Muslims are today, children of Abraham but not Jews.   Jews considered them unclean.    Yeshua spoke to this woman with respect and didn't once tell her to convert or that she was going to hell because she was not a Jew.  This example is the one I use in dealing with people from other religious paths.




> John 4:23-24
> 
> But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.   God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


Yes, I still call myself Christian, by the way I'm Scots-Irish too.   Both words describe my cultural heritage and I appreciate the faith and struggle of my ancestors that put me where I am now.

I find nothing in the teachings of Yeshua that says that being a Christian and loving God with your whole heart is any better than being a Wiccan, a Jew, a Moslem, a Buddhist or any other religion and loving God with your whole heart.

In Christ,
Paula

_Conclusion:
If Christianity is losing strength in this country it is because people are discovering that orthodox Christianity is based on a 1800 year old lie.  The history is there and thinking people can not ignore it.  They are turning to "New Age" and "alternative religions" in an attempt to discover Truth.    If Christians don't want Christianity to disappear in this country they are going to have to admit to the lie, give it all up (as Yeshua told them in the Scriptures) and recognize that each person's Spirit and struggle for eternal Truth must be respected and the cultural or religious context doesn't make any difference._

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ^Bulls---!
> 
> Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Hoxha etc.---were all militant atheists and the biggest mass murderers in history.
> 
> Sorry, but your revisionist history won't float here. It'll get flushed down the toilet where it belongs.


Yes, their religion was collectivist atheism.   IMO, Nick was wrong to blame Christians alone, but it's also wrong to blame atheists alone.  Better to blame the State!

----------


## ceakins

> ^Bulls---!
> 
> Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Hoxha etc.---were all militant atheists and the biggest mass murderers in history.
> 
> Sorry, but your revisionist history won't float here. It'll get flushed down the toilet where it belongs.


Mao, and Stalin abolished religion because it competed with their power base.  However Stalin reinstated the church as soon as hitler invaded, hoping it would help him.  They were both cults of personality, hardly atheist.

----------


## ceakins

Where were you christians when one of my relatives was being raped by a "spiritual leader"?  Where were you when I was getting physically abused growing up in the name of god?

No law should be established based on ones religion.  The only laws that should be in place are to protect people if what they would be doing would harm someone in else in the process.  Gay marriage will not magically make your marriage go bad.  I don't think the government should be involved with marriage period gay or straight.  Unless you are happy the way the taliban governed then you would be against religious edict as part of the law.

----------


## diggronpaul

> Perhaps the "statistics" about the decline of Christianity in the US are true?


No, they are NOT true.  This is psychological warfare, to try to make us believe that Christianity is in decline. According to the CIA, the following is the order of religious preferences in the United States:

* Christian: (78.5%)

- Protestant (51.3%)
- Roman Catholic (23.9%)
- Mormon (1.7%)
- other Christian (1.6%)

* unaffiliated (12.1%)
* none (4%)
* other or unspecified (2.5%)
* Jewish (1.7%)
* Buddhist (0.7%)
* Muslim (0.6%)

As anyone can see, we remain a strong Christian nation, eventhough this international cabal masquerading as the US Government would like us to think otherwise.

----------


## diggronpaul

> Where were you christians when one of my relatives was being raped by a "spiritual leader"?  Where were you when I was getting physically abused growing up in the name of god?
> 
> No law should be established based on ones religion.  The only laws that should be in place are to protect people if what they would be doing would harm someone in else in the process.  Gay marriage will not magically make your marriage go bad.  I don't think the government should be involved with marriage period gay or straight.  Unless you are happy the way the taliban governed then you would be against religious edict as part of the law.


Aim you're anger at the international cabal that infiltrated the churches and populated them with pedophiles.  This was deliberately done to create the sort of anger at the church that you now have.  But, yes, the institution of the church has been infiltrated, just like everything else.

----------


## Kludge

> No, they are NOT true.  This is psychological warfare, to try to make us believe that Christianity is in decline. According to the CIA, the following is the order of religious preferences in the United States:
> 
> * Christian: (78.5%)
> 
> - Protestant (51.3%)
> - Roman Catholic (23.9%)
> - Mormon (1.7%)
> - other Christian (1.6%)
> 
> ...


That's still a significant decline from the reported number of the 1990s (nearly 87%).

I also think my source is more reliable given openness and sample size, but it's not worth squabbling over less than a 2% difference. Your source does not give statistics over time, so if you are claiming my source is false, yours still does not prove any trend.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> _Conclusion:
> If Christianity is losing strength in this country it is because people are discovering that orthodox Christianity is based on a 1800 year old lie.  The history is there and thinking people can not ignore it.  They are turning to "New Age" and "alternative religions" in an attempt to discover Truth.    If Christians don't want Christianity to disappear in this country they are going to have to admit to the lie, give it all up (as Yeshua told them in the Scriptures) and recognize that each person's Spirit and struggle for eternal Truth must be respected and the cultural or religious context doesn't make any difference._


Sounds like a perfect advertisement for the One World Religion that has been planned for the one world government, for many, many years.  Congratulations, Paula, you apparently bought it, hook, line and sinker.

----------


## ceakins

> Aim you're anger at the international cabal that infiltrated the churches and populated them with pedophiles.  This was deliberately done to create the sort of anger at the church that you now have.  But, yes, the institution of the church has been infiltrated, just like everything else.


Well if you read the bible I don't think any organized church with an earthly head is even supported by the bible.

You did not address the rest of my post, again I don't think any religion should try to establish laws based on religious edict.  There should only be laws established based on if what a person is doing is going to violate the civil rights of another person.  As in harm, be it physical or mental harm.  Ask yourself do you really think we should be establish theocratic law?  If so where in the bible does it give you that right?

----------


## ceakins

> Sounds like a perfect advertisement for the One World Religion that has been planned for the one world government, for many, many years.  Congratulations, Paula, you apparently bought it, hook, line and sinker.


Yes because we are all stepping up wanting to be indoctrinated into a one world religion.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Where were you christians when one of my relatives was being raped by a "spiritual leader"?  Where were you when I was getting physically abused growing up in the name of god?


It is disgusting that this happened to your relative and you and whomever did it, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  

Are you blaming God for what happened?  Is that it?  Or, is it that you are blaming all Christians for a select couple's actions?  They didn't do what they did because they were Christians; when they did what they did, they were not following His word.




> No law should be established based on ones religion.  The only laws that should be in place are to protect people if what they would be doing would harm someone in else in the process.  Gay marriage will not magically make your marriage go bad.  I don't think the government should be involved with marriage period gay or straight.  Unless you are happy the way the taliban governed then you would be against religious edict as part of the law.


I'm not seeing anyone here arguing for the Church to be the government.  That is the predominant reason why our forefathers founded this country, so that they could get away from that and worship as they chose.  Are you possibly misunderstanding when someone says that our country was founded on biblical principles as saying that the church should rule?  I can only speak for myself, but that's not what I mean at all.

----------


## PaulaGem

> Sounds like a perfect advertisement for the One World Religion that has been planned for the one world government, for many, many years.  Congratulations, Paula, you apparently bought it, hook, line and sinker.


I really don't understand how you go from respect for all religions and the realiztion that the only way to truly worship is in Spirit and in Truth to "one world religion".

It seems that peaceful coexistance is beyond your comprehension.

----------


## Deborah K

> _Conclusion:
> If Christianity is losing strength in this country it is because people are discovering that orthodox Christianity is based on a 1800 year old lie.  The history is there and thinking people can not ignore it.  They are turning to "New Age" and "alternative religions" in an attempt to discover Truth.    If Christians don't want Christianity to disappear in this country they are going to have to admit to the lie, give it all up (as Yeshua told them in the Scriptures) and recognize that each person's Spirit and struggle for eternal Truth must be respected and the cultural or religious context doesn't make any difference._


Christianity is losing its strength because that has been part of the agenda of the progressives since the turn of the 20th century.  Up until 1962, in the case of Engel v. Vitale, children could pray in school.  Since then, tptb have been systematically removing religion from public affairs even though they were intertwined up until then.  Now, the Universities are pumping out atheists who think the words "Seperation of Church and State" mean that religion is meant to be boxed up and closeted, when its original intent meant nothing of the sort.

----------


## fedup100

> Perhaps the "statistics" about the decline of Christianity in the US are true?
> 
> Too bad it's coming at a time of unprecedented increase in the size of government. Atheists will probably be blamed if the Jews aren't.
> 
> What's with gay-hating? (the "African Arab" mention was dubious, too)



?? Atheists or jews will probably be blamed??  DUH!!  If the shoe fits!

I did not see gay-hating, but you did.  No real Christian will ever support homosexuality.  It is an abomination before GOD and those who allow or support it will be at odds with GOD. 

 Again though, pointing this out is NOT HATE, it is rhetorical communication of known facts according to the bible.  True christians do no hate homosexuals any more than they would hate liars or thieves, all are sinners and the true christian would pray for them and hope to bring them to the truth before they leave this world.

Hate speak is code for NO freedom of speech.  To me, true hate speak is a sitting President spewing openly his plans to pick up and detain all who oppose his demonic rule.  Now brother that is hate speak of the highest order.

----------


## fedup100

> While our immediate attention spans are tied up with sequential crisis like swine flu, housing meltdown/severe economic recession, Katrina hurricane etc, another powerful change taking place is gradual secularization/de-Christianization across America. A radical shift in US policies is underway and "Christian" leaders have been for the most part sidelined with little to no influence in Washington policy making. 
> 
> Some noteable milestones that have followed Iraq war in rapid succession:
> 
> 
> - First time in US history, son of an African Arab muslim man has been elected to the White House, a man whose Christian faith is doubted by many including some in his own party (such as Hillary "as far as I know he's a christian" Clinton)
> 
> - Christian Right/Republican party has been pushed almost to political oblivion with little to no access to the White House and policy making 
> 
> ...



The Christians in this country have been hijacked by the Zionists.  The churches and I mean almost all of them have bought the zionist line, hook line and sinker. 

John Hagee is the poster child for the zionist churches and he is a fat liar and a judus goat.  He has led the christian churches to their doom.  He has also led the christian into the "false jew: trap which means the end of their country, freedom and treasure.

The american dumbed down christians now worship the jew, not Jesus, what did you think would be the results of such insanity?

----------


## diggronpaul

> Well if you read the bible I don't think any organized church with an earthly head is even supported by the bible.
> 
> You did not address the rest of my post, again I don't think any religion should try to establish laws based on religious edict.  There should only be laws established based on if what a person is doing is going to violate the civil rights of another person.  As in harm, be it physical or mental harm.  Ask yourself do you really think we should be establish theocratic law?  If so where in the bible does it give you that right?


I agree with all your points, but with some qualification.

With regard to churches NOT reflecting the teachings of the bible, I would say from my perspective you have a valid point.  However, what you do not address is why this is the case and who is behind this movement away from the bible.  Again, I would argue that this was deliberate, and was perpetrated by forces that initially were outside the church, ultimately entering the church specifically to obtain this goal.

The rest of your post from before said the following...



> No law should be established based on ones religion.  The only laws that should be in place are to protect people if what they would be doing would harm someone in else in the process.  Gay marriage will not magically make your marriage go bad.  I don't think the government should be involved with marriage period gay or straight.  Unless you are happy the way the taliban governed then you would be against religious edict as part of the law.


Again, I agree that no law should be established based upon a specific religion, and I agree that the Government should NOT be in the marriage business.   But again, I would argue that all of these developments (ie. gay marriage & laws based upon religious fervor) are promoted by those who has specific cultural objectives and are simply using the church or gay marriage as vehicles to obtain those objectives.

What happens when you begin to look at this cultural changes as symptoms to a larger problem, or as vehicles to achieve certain ends?  Does your perspective change?

----------


## fedup100

> I really don't understand how you go from respect for all religions and the realiztion that the only way to truly worship is in Spirit and in Truth to "one world religion".
> 
> It seems that peaceful coexistance is beyond your comprehension.


The respect of ALL religions IS the one world religion.  I as a christian do not respect nor do I open my arms to ALL religions.  There is one GOD, ONE faith, all others are false and an abomination.

----------


## diggronpaul

> That's still a significant decline from the reported number of the 1990s (nearly 87%).
> 
> I also think my source is more reliable given openness and sample size, but it's not worth squabbling over less than a 2% difference. Your source does not give statistics over time, so if you are claiming my source is false, yours still does not prove any trend.


The point I was hoping to make is that there is still a long long way to go in this country before the teachings of Christ represent anything other than a vast majority of the population.  The international cabal may have gained some ground, but that was only across the lowest hanging fruit, I think we're going to see a strengthening resolve across the remaining majority, and it won't be so easy to sway those from their existing belief systems.  Overall, I think the cabal has seriously underestimated just how much of a challenge it is going to be to unwind God from American culture.




> Christianity is losing its strength because that has been part of the agenda of the progressives since the turn of the 20th century.  Up until 1962, in the case of Engel v. Vitale, children could pray in school.  Since then, tptb have been systematically removing religion from public affairs even though they were intertwined up until then.  Now, the Universities are pumping out atheists who think the words "Seperation of Church and State" mean that religion is meant to be boxed up and closeted, when its original intent meant nothing of the sort.


The progressives are a tool, a vehicle, a weapon of attack.  Look to who is controlling that weapon.

----------


## PaulaGem

> The respect of ALL religions IS the one world religion.  I as a christian do not respect nor do I open my arms to ALL religions.  There is one GOD, ONE faith, all others are false and an abomination.


God save us from "Christians" like this.   This is a perfect example of why Christians are losing respect in this country.

----------


## nickcoons

> Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Hoxha etc.---were all militant atheists and the biggest mass murderers in history.
> 
> Sorry, but your revisionist history won't float here. It'll get flushed down the toilet where it belongs.


It would take me hours to rebut the falsities you've perpetuated in all of probably a few minutes of copying and pasting a list of alleged atheist, which you clearly have not confirmed, so I won't.  Though a quick google of several of the people on your list, such as Fidel Castro, clearly show that it is not a list of atheists.

An atheist is one that arrives at all conclusions (instead of picking and choosing) via reason, not faith.  Any person that exercises faith, whether that faith results in the belief of a supernatural entity such as a god, the belief that one's self should be worshiped by his subjects, or the irrationality that the state should be worshiped is not an atheist; because these are faith-based (i.e. lacking reason) beliefs.

You cannot reason your way into a dictatorial, oppressive role.  Only faith can lead someone down that route.  Atheism and faith are incompatible.




> Partial list of confirmed atheists who collectively murdered well over one hundred million people in the 20th century alone:
> 
> Afghanistan-- Nur Muhammad Taraki, Babrak Kamal
> Albania-- Enver Hoxha
> Angola-- Agostinho Neto, José Eduardo dos Santos
> Bulgaria-- Vulko Chervenkov, Todor Zhivkov
> Cambodia-- Pol Pot, Heng Samrin
> China-- Mao Tse-Tung, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintau
> Cuba-- Fidel Castro
> ...

----------


## nickcoons

> Yes, their religion was collectivist atheism.   IMO, Nick was wrong to blame Christians alone, but it's also wrong to blame atheists alone.  Better to blame the State!


Where did I place the blame solely on Christians?

----------


## fedup100

> God save us from "Christians" like this.   This is a perfect example of why Christians are losing respect in this country.


This post is a perfect example of how we have abandoned the teachings of the GOD of the Holy Bible.

So where does the Bible tell the christian to allow, as they did in Rome, the cross to sit equally beside all other religions including satanists.  If any christian believes this, they have not read the word of GOD.  

Freedom of religion by the founders meant the freedom to believe or reject the God of the Holy Bible, not freedom to worship satan or sacrifice a goat on the front lawn.


The Bible warns his people "to have NO OTHER god before you"

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Where did I place the blame solely on Christians?


n/m, I misread your post.   Sorry.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> It would take me hours to rebut the falsities you've perpetuated in all of probably a few minutes of copying and pasting a list of alleged atheist, which you clearly have not confirmed, so I won't.  Though a quick google of several of the people on your list, such as Fidel Castro, clearly show that it is not a list of atheists.
> 
> An atheist is one that arrives at all conclusions (instead of picking and choosing) via reason, not faith.  Any person that exercises faith, whether that faith results in the belief of a supernatural entity such as a god, the belief that one's self should be worshiped by his subjects, or the irrationality that the state should be worshiped is not an atheist; because these are faith-based (i.e. lacking reason) beliefs.
> 
> You cannot reason your way into a dictatorial, oppressive role.  Only faith can lead someone down that route.  Atheism and faith are incompatible.


More semantic garbage from Nickie, who hasn't rebutted SQUAT.

You sound JUST LIKE Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini etcetera, YOURSELF. Virtually every atheist dictator of the 20th Century tried to hide behind the same phony veneer of "reason". Like you, they claimed that "reason" was their only guide.

All your bunk about alleged "reason", only proves that you and a lot of other atheists have POOR reasoning skills.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> Yes, their religion was collectivist atheism.   IMO, Nick was wrong to blame Christians alone, but it's also wrong to blame atheists alone.  Better to blame the State!


I wasn't blaming atheists alone, HB. I was merely rebutting the absolute nonsense espoused by some atheists, who try to blame Christianity for everything bad that's ever happened in the last 2000 years.

The state is only the VEHICLE for oppression. The personal beliefs of the people controlling the state MUST be taken into account, and 20th century ATHEISTS are far and away the biggest mass murderers in human history.

According to many SECULAR historians, the Spanish Inquisition claimed about 3000 to 5000 lives TOTAL, over a course of several hundred years.

Whereas the devout atheist and evolutionist Mao Zedong, and his atheist regime, were responsible for the deaths of over SIXTY MILLION human beings in only a few decades of the 20th century. Not to mention the additional MILLIONS who were imprisoned, enslaved and tortured.

Don't forget Benito Mussolini, who was a militant atheist and evolutionist, as well as the founding father of fascism.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I wasn't blaming atheists alone, HB. I was merely rebutting the absolute nonsense espoused by some atheists, who try to blame Christianity for everything bad that's ever happened in the last 2000 years.
> 
> The state is only the VEHICLE for oppression. The personal beliefs of the people controlling the state MUST be taken into account, and 20th century ATHEISTS are far and away the biggest mass murderers in human history.
> 
> According to many SECULAR historians, the Spanish Inquisition claimed about 3000 to 5000 lives TOTAL, over a course of several hundred years.
> 
> Whereas the devout atheist and evolutionist Mao Zedong, and his atheist regime, were responsible for the deaths of over SIXTY MILLION human beings in only a few decades of the 20th century. Not to mention the additional MILLIONS who were imprisoned, enslaved and tortured.
> 
> Don't forget Benito Mussolini, who was a militant atheist and evolutionist, as well as the founding father of fascism.


oic.  You have an interesting opinion, indeed.  I only differ in that IMO the State lends itself naturally to evil and corruption, and ought not exist (for the sake of humanity and all that is good in the world).  ttyl! ~hugs~

----------


## nickcoons

> More semantic garbage from Nickie, who hasn't rebutted SQUAT.
> 
> You sound JUST LIKE Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini etcetera, YOURSELF. Virtually every atheist dictator of the 20th Century tried to hide behind the same phony veneer of "reason". Like you, they claimed that "reason" was their only guide.
> 
> All your bunk about alleged "reason", only proves that you and a lot of other atheists have POOR reasoning skills.


A theistic belief can only arrive from an adherence to faith, which is the polar opposite of reason.  Faith exists when a conclusion is reached without evidence supporting that conclusion, and therefore without reason.

Hitler (who was a Catholic, not an atheist) had an unfounded and irrational belief in the genetic superiority of the German people (ironically, as he was not German).  This belief lacked any reason.  It was then, by definition, a faith-based belief.

Characteristic of atheism is an adherence to reason and a rejection of faith.  Hitler, Stalin, etc. may have claimed to have reason supporting their positions, but this was little more than intellectual dishonesty.  There is no evidence that Hitler provided any evidence supporting his conclusion that Germans were genetically superior, and as such were entitled to rule the world.  Believing such nonsense requires an extravagant leap of faith outside the realm of reason.  Such leaps are not characteristics of atheists, and anyone exhibiting these characteristics is not an atheist no more than one proposing foreign military interventions and government economic stimulus is a libertarian, no matter how they distort reality in an attempt to label themselves as such.

Sean Hannity calls himself a libertarian.  Clearly you're aware that people can use such labels deceptively, either attributed to themselves or to others.  Claims that specific faith-based individuals are atheists falls into this category.

I don't blame Christianity singularly for all atrocities.  I blame faith-based belief and moral systems.  Such systems include Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Socialism, and any system that requires the individual to join a collective goal on faith.

----------


## Deborah K

Believe it or not, reason and faith can coexist in the same brain.

----------


## zach

> Believe it or not, reason and faith can coexist in the same brain.


In the balance, we may find the compromise.

----------


## Deborah K

> Hitler (who was a Catholic, not an atheist) had an unfounded and irrational belief in the genetic superiority of the German people (ironically, as he was not German).  This belief lacked any reason.  It was then, by definition, a faith-based belief.


Hitler was born into a catholic family.  He was not a practising catholic during his reign.  It is very inflammatory of you to suggest otherwise.

----------


## Deborah K

> In the balance, we may find the compromise.


Very nicely put!

----------


## Conservative Christian

> A theistic belief can only arrive from an adherence to faith, which is the polar opposite of reason.  Faith exists when a conclusion is reached without evidence supporting that conclusion, and therefore without reason.
> 
> Hitler (who was a Catholic, not an atheist) had an unfounded and irrational belief in the genetic superiority of the German people (ironically, as he was not German).  This belief lacked any reason.  It was then, by definition, a faith-based belief.
> 
> Characteristic of atheism is an adherence to reason and a rejection of faith.  Hitler, Stalin, etc. may have claimed to have reason supporting their positions, but this was little more than intellectual dishonesty.  There is no evidence that Hitler provided any evidence supporting his conclusion that Germans were genetically superior, and as such were entitled to rule the world.  Believing such nonsense requires an extravagant leap of faith outside the realm of reason.  Such leaps are not characteristics of atheists, and anyone exhibiting these characteristics is not an atheist no more than one proposing foreign military interventions and government economic stimulus is a libertarian, no matter how they distort reality in an attempt to label themselves as such.
> 
> Sean Hannity calls himself a libertarian.  Clearly you're aware that people can use such labels deceptively, either attributed to themselves or to others.  Claims that specific faith-based individuals are atheists falls into this category.
> 
> I don't blame Christianity singularly for all atrocities.  I blame faith-based belief and moral systems.  Such systems include Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Socialism, and any system that requires the individual to join a collective goal on faith.


When it comes to being deceptive, that loser Hannity has NOTHING on you, Mr. Coons.

You're the same individual who "reasoned" that a person who hires a hit-man to kill somebody, is NOT guilty of any crime. 

Your self-proclaimed "reason", like that of so many other atheists, is quite often simply sheer BS---and YOU are as intellectually dishonest as Hitler and Stalin. 

The devout atheism of the Communists played a KEY role in their marked proclivity for mass murder, PRECISELY because they viewed themselves as the ultimate power, and thus had no use for such concepts as "Thou shalt not kill"---and they believed they wouldn't have to ultimately answer to a higher authority for their crimes.

And the murderous world of atheist communism really isn't much different from an atheist Nick Coons world, where somebody could have people murdered at will, by simply hiring a hit man to do their dirty work. 

In a Nick Coons world, a radical racist could go out and hire a hit-man with a machine gun to open fire on a crowded auditorium at a black college, and Nick would let the racist go free. 

Sorry, but I'll pass on Nick's grossly distorted "reason", as will anybody with common sense.

----------


## Bman

> Hitler was born into a catholic family.  He was not a practising catholic during his reign.  It is very inflammatory of you to suggest otherwise.


Doesn't change that fact that he had Judeo-Christian values.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> Hitler was born into a catholic family.  He was not a practising catholic during his reign.  It is very inflammatory of you to suggest otherwise.


By his own admission, Hitler rejected Christianity at the age of fourteen. He sometimes bragged to his Nazi associates, about how he would openly ridicule the Christian beliefs of his teachers during his school years.

His devout belief in the theory of evolution led him to believe that Germans and other  "Aryans" were the "pinnacle of human evolution", the alleged highest form of life on earth.

----------


## Deborah K

> Doesn't change that fact that he had Judeo-Christian values.



How do you know for a fact that he had Judeo-Christian values during his reign?  I would think, based on his actions, you would be able to surmise that he didn't.  Besides, how many atheists started out as Christians?  LOTS!!

----------


## Bman

> How do you know for a fact that he had Judeo-Christian values during his reign?  I would think, based on his actions, you would be able to surmise that he didn't.  Besides, how many atheists started out as Christians?  LOTS!!


I'm just pulling your chain.  Good and bad people come from everywhere.

----------


## Deborah K

> By his own admission, Hitler rejected Christianity at the age of fourteen. He sometimes bragged to his Nazi associates, about how he would openly ridicule the Christian beliefs of his teachers during his school years.
> 
> His devout belief in the theory of evolution led him to believe that Germans and other  "Aryans" were the "pinnacle of human evolution", the alleged highest form of life on earth.



And it doesn't explain why, if he was a practising Christian, he would put Priests and other clergy types in the camps. 

 I have never seen more history revision in my life!!!  Is this board being taken over by the atheist/anarchist movement or something?

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm just pulling your chain.  Good and bad people come from everywhere.



You like pulling my chain do ya?

----------


## Bman

> You like pulling my chain do ya?


From time to time it is what I do.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> Doesn't change that fact that he had Judeo-Christian values.



*"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Adolf Hitler
Quoted by Albert Speer, "Inside the Third Reich" (Speer was Hitler's closest friend and confidant during the Third Reich)*


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> And it doesn't explain why, if he was a practising Christian, he would put Priests and other clergy types in the camps. 
> 
> I have never seen more history revision in my life!!!  Is this board being taken over by the atheist/anarchist movement or something?


Hitler sent over 700 Catholic priests to the concentration camps. I'm not sure of the figure on how many Protestant pastors were imprisoned, but it was in the hundreds, including Niemoller etc.

Go to Barnes & Noble and Borders, and take a look at books by reputable historians and authors like William Shirer, Michael Burleigh, Ian Kershaw etc.  The militant anti-Christian nature of Hitler and Naziism are well documented by these internationally acknowledged experts.

Not to mention that MANY of Hitler's own Nazi associates have documented the anti-Christian nature of Hitler and Naziism, including Albert Speer, Ernst Hanfstaengel, Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler etc.

----------


## nickcoons

> Believe it or not, reason and faith can coexist in the same brain.


No more so than light and dark can coexist in the same volume of space.  Dark is the absence of light -- faith is the absence of reason.

Understanding Faith and Reason

----------


## nickcoons

> When it comes to being deceptive, that loser Hannity has NOTHING on you, Mr. Coons.


Though I disagree with basically everything you're saying, I've been considerate throughout.  Would it be accurate to say that your attitude is typical of Christians, or are you unique in your hostility?




> You're the same individual who "reasoned" that a person who hires a hit-man to kill somebody, is NOT guilty of any crime.


I would invite you to re-read that thread.  Very clearly, I simply asked someone to explain to me their view, logically played through, why the hirer of a contract killer should be liable.  You're mistaken if you think the discussion's intention was for me to convey that I think the hirer is not guilty of a crime.  For those of us that enjoy engaging in mental exercises, the intent was clear.

If your judgment of me is based on thinking that I think it's okay for people to hire people to kill people, then consider your premise shattered and start over.




> The devout atheism of the Communists played a KEY role in their marked proclivity for mass murder, PRECISELY because they viewed themselves as the ultimate power, and thus had no use for such concepts as "Thou shalt not kill"---and they believed they wouldn't have to ultimately answer to a higher authority for their crimes.


Soviet communists followed the ideology of state worship, hardly atheistic.  Reason leads one to an objective morality that precludes the initiation of force.  You cannot use reason to commit mass murder, or any murder.




> And the murderous world of atheist communism really isn't much different from an atheist Nick Coons world, where somebody could have people murdered at will, by simply hiring a hit man to do their dirty work.


Except that they'd be legitimately punished for committing an act of aggression against another human being.  I guess if you leave out that minor detail, then sure, there's no difference.




> In a Nick Coons world, a radical racist could go out and hire a hit-man with a machine gun to open fire on a crowded auditorium at a black college, and Nick would let the racist go free.


Strawman.




> Sorry, but I'll pass on Nick's grossly distorted "reason", as will anybody with common sense.


Basing your arguments on false premises usually leads to false conclusions.

----------


## nickcoons

> Hitler was born into a catholic family.  He was not a practising catholic during his reign.  It is very inflammatory of you to suggest otherwise.


It was inflammatory of me?  Please look up the word "inflammatory", and try not to exaggerate next time.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> Though I disagree with basically everything you're saying, I've been considerate throughout.  Would it be accurate to say that your attitude is typical of Christians, or are you unique in your hostility?


Stop your whining, Mr. Coons. I called the self-professed Christian Hannity a "loser", whereas I very accurately referred to you as only being "deceptive". So I was actually being harder on an alleged fellow Christian, than I was on you. 




> I would invite you to re-read that thread.  Very clearly, I simply asked someone to explain to me their view, logically played through, why the hirer of a contract killer should be liable.  You're mistaken if you think the discussion's intention was for me to convey that I think the hirer is not guilty of a crime.  For those of us that enjoy engaging in mental exercises, the intent was clear.


I'm familiar with the thread, and you're being deceptive again.




> If your judgment of me is based on thinking that I think it's okay for people to hire people to kill people, then consider your premise shattered and start over.


You've shattered nothing, except your own credibility.




> Soviet communists followed the ideology of state worship, hardly atheistic.  Reason leads one to an objective morality that precludes the initiation of force.  You cannot use reason to commit mass murder, or any murder.


^Hogwash. Don't bore me with your semantic games, Mr. Coons. Please PROVE that these atheists "worshipped" the state. Please explain PRECISELY how they "worshipped" it.

The hard fact of the matter is, many of those murderous atheists didn't "worship" the state at all. Due to their atheist belief in "reason", many of them merely viewed the state as a means to an end.

In fact, in communist theory, the state is supposed to eventually "wither away"---i.e. be replaced by an anarchist utopia. The ULTIMATE and FINAL stage of communism has NO state.

So from the BEGINNING of the world communist movement, the state was seen by the communist atheists ONLY AS A MEANS TO AN END, WHICH WOULD EVENTUALLY BE DONE AWAY WITH. 

Nobody would do away with something that they "worship", thus Mr. Coon's flawed hypothesis that the communists "worshiped" the state = CATASTROPHIC FAIL.




> Except that they'd be legitimately punished for committing an act of aggression against another human being.  I guess if you leave out that minor detail, then sure, there's no difference.


In the previous thread we're both referring to, however, you stated that only the hireling committing the murder should be punished, and that the hirer should NOT.

Your very typical atheist flip-flopping and dancing around the issue have been noted.




> Strawman.


Not at all. Merely a REASONABLE assessment based on your own past statements.




> Basing your arguments on false premises usually leads to false conclusions.


Indeed. YOUR many false premises have led YOU to MANY false conclusions, Mr. Coon. You are in sad need of a proper education in politics, economics, logic and morality---just to name a few areas in which you are deficient.

----------


## nickcoons

> Stop your whining, Mr. Coons.


I should have picked up this in your first post.  I did pick it up, but I ignored it and continued, a mistake I accept fault for.

There are multiple purposes for engaging in online debate.  Only a couple of which I will knowingly partake in.  One is education (of and by either party), and the other is intellectual exercise.  Your tactic represents a third kind -- one I will not engage in -- which is represented by attacking your opponent, generally for an artificially self-uplifting purpose (maybe this is why you repeatedly misspell my name, or maybe it's an honest mistake).  I've been told that people like to try and ruffle my feathers because I'm unflappable, so maybe your goal is one of reaching some sort of personal milestone.. who knows.

If your purpose is to educate me, then your approach is all wrong.  If you think I'm beyond educating, then you're wasting your time.  Either way, your participation is pointless.  And by that token, so is mine.  So I will leave you with the following thoughts.

You confuse Marxist theoretical communism with Soviet empirical communism.  The former is the "wither away" type you describe, and the latter is the state worship type where faith-based religion is supplanted by faith-based belief in the benevolence of the state, which is simply religion worshiping some other deity, not at all atheistic.

I tell you that I do not believe it's okay for people to hire people to kill people.  Infer whatever you want from devil's advocate arguments, but there is no higher authority to tell you what I believe than me.  You can think I'm deceptive, but deception requires a motive, and I don't care what your judgment of me is, so you can think I'm a child molester if you'd like and I won't lose any sleep at night.  I have no motivation to deceive you.

In that same vain, I'm very aware of the solid ground on which I stand in regards to my logical, moral, political, and economic (how'd that one even enter the conversation?) views.  You're at the point in this conversation where you will discount anything I say, not because of what I say, but because I'm saying it.  So I have no motivation to put forth the effort into trying to convince you of anything further.  You'll believe what you want to believe, and no one's going to convince you with logical arguments, because you'll quickly reveal to them the futility of their efforts and they'll get bored just as I have.

----------


## Conservative Christian

You've proven nothing, Mr. Coons---and I've confused nothing.

Please give us DOCUMENTABLE PROOF that all Soviet empirical communists "worship" the state. I'm calling BS on your claim right now. For many "empirical communists", the state is merely a means to an end--total power.

They were mass-murdering atheists, plain and simple.

Your ego-driven proclamations are laughable, and your self-professed "logic" rests on ground about as solid as quicksand.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Those that partook in this thread may be interested in this for further reading:

*Religion in the Soviet Union*

----------


## Liberty Star

> Those that partook in this thread may be interested in this for further reading:
> 
> *Religion in the Soviet Union*


Interesting read.

It is ironic that Jewish immigrantion from the former Soviet Union to Israel ( that OBL among otherrs helped make possible) has become  part of problem in holy land dispute.   USSR's name  somehow comes up in major issues of today.

----------


## Liberty Star

Another sign, last week notorious pro apartheid group CUFI held a gathering in Washington and no one cared. Ironically, in same week Obama adminstration tightened screws on holy land settlers by arresting Rabbis tied to settler movement.  Obama didn't even come to say hello to CUFI extremists when they were in town.

----------


## Sandman33

The bible SAYS that Christianity will fail.

That Satan will decieve and enslave the entire world.  And that he will only rescue a hanfull of his loyal sheep.

----------


## Kludge

I think you can appreciate this, Sandman (nsfw, language): http://bash.org/?126218

----------


## Sandman33

> I think you can appreciate this, Sandman (nsfw, language): http://bash.org/?126218


AHAHAAAAA!! Oh that's GREAT!

----------


## TortoiseDream

> i think you can appreciate this, sandman (nsfw, language): http://bash.org/?126218


lolol

----------


## Liberty Star

> The bible SAYS that Christianity will fail.
> 
> That Satan will decieve and enslave the entire world.  And that he will only rescue a hanfull of his loyal sheep.


If I'm nost mistaken, that is supposed to happen just bfeore return of Jesus.  On return  Jesus will then convert all remaining jews, muslims, atheists to original Christian faith (original catholic) of olden times and those who refuse to accept the true message would face a very unpleasant end. At least that's my understanding of Biblical prophecy.

----------


## Liberty Star

This was posted in GP , courtesy of another forum guest:




> [h1]GOD FORGIVE ME FOR SENDING OUR TROOPS TO IRAQ! Congressman Walter Jones[/h1]
> 
> YouTube - GOD FORGIVE ME FOR SENDING OUR TROOPS TO IRAQ! Congressman Walter Jones

----------


## Working Poor

I don't understand how Christians think they are the moral police of this country. Gays are not going away and neither is abortion.

Why they continue to let these issues slant their political views  and elect dumbo liars like GW Bush is totally beyond me.

I wonder when as a group Christians are going to be able to discern truth.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Kpitcher...that is not the entire quote:

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams

HERE is the entire quote.  Atheists love to use the above quote to justify their stance that the founders were not Christians,

John Adams was referring to his boyhood minister Lemuel Bryant and his latin schoolmaster used to argue ad nauseam about religion and he told Jefferson: "Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!  But in this exclaimation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly.  Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company--I mean hell."  John Adams

Source:  "They Never Said IT"  Paul F. Boller, Jr. & John George

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

This is a great site..with a lot of historical documentation...Thank GOD someone is preserving it..because the atheists and jews will either revise or destroy our history.  TOnes 

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissue...es.asp?id=8755

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't understand how Christians think they are the moral police of this country. Gays are not going away and neither is abortion.
> 
> Why they continue to let these issues slant their political views  and elect dumbo liars like GW Bush is totally beyond me.
> 
> I wonder when as a group Christians are going to be able to discern truth.


IMO, they could if they could separate the Church from the State (mentally).  This would allow them to see that the State is antithetical to all the moral virtues extolled in the gospels.

----------


## PaulaGem

The Second Coming of Christ (or the return of the annointed of God)  is more simply and directly understood as a return to the simple gnostic theachings of Yeshua about the Kingdom and loving your neighbor as yourself.

If these teachings were to raise up a critical mass of enlightened souls much would change very quickly.

Catholic doctrine came several generations after the True teachings of the Master.

----------

