The fall of Christianity in USA

[sun rise]

Which has nothing to do with my statement of:

"The United States is NOT a Christian theocracy. Sorry to break the good news to you, but it true. It's a democracy with a separation of church and state (government)."

Some Christians are just like some Muslims who want to impose their religion on others, shove it down their throats and punish those who won't agree.

Fine, let's have prayer in public schools. Start with satanists, then Muslims, then pagans, then pastafarians and including atheists and then the Christians can have their turn to preach. But we also need to give time to Buddhists, Hindus and anyone else who wants to pray in public.

 

[Tambourine]

There were none of these things in the public area because all people had the feeling of shame.
The sinners were underground. We were a nation of saints:

Do you want these people to simply pretend that they live as fundamentalist Christians?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Brave little one!

Not really. I was more "brave" for being a Catholic in a school basically run by the Xenos cult.

 

[questfortruth]

Some Christians are just like some Muslims who want to impose their religion on others, shove it down their throats and punish those who won't agree.

Fine, let's have prayer in public schools. Start with satanists, then Muslims, then pagans, then pastafarians and including atheists and then the Christians can have their turn to preach. But we also need to give time to Buddhists, Hindus and anyone else who wants to pray in public.

Theism or Atheism - no third option in sight. Thus, having zero tolerance of God, they have full acceptance of godless-ness.

Do you want these people to simply pretend that they live as fundamentalist Christians?

No, but we have forgotten the way of living in US prior to 1962 AD. There was no problem for everybody.
Remember, and recall. Go to archives.

 

[Tambourine]

No, but we have forgotten the way of living in US prior to 1962 AD. There was no problem for everybody.

What makes you believe that LGBTQ people did not have a problem with being persecuted by Christian conservatives?

 

[questfortruth]

What makes you believe that LGBTQ people did not have a problem with being persecuted by Christian conservatives?

I am not speculating, but I point you to the fact, that while falling down a stage, one completely forgets how it was on the higher stage. Thus, one should go to the library, to archive. The people, who were once theists have completely forgotten the fear of death. The True-man Jesus Christ (cf. Truman show) was terrified by nearing death.

 

[Tambourine]

I am not speculating, but I point you to the fact, that while falling down a stage, one completely forgets how it was on the higher stage.

That's the exact opposite of what you've been argueing up to now.

 

[halbhh]

Why the fall of Christianity? The status quo of the US was Christianity.

HISTORIC record:
1962 - Engel v. Vitale: removal of prayer in public schools by "supreme court".
1963 - Abington School District v. Schempp: removal of Bible reading in public schools by the "supreme court".
1973 - Roe v. Wade: "legalized" abortions by the "supreme court".
2013 - US v. Windsor: the "supreme court" struck down the defense of marriage act (DOMA).
2015 - Obergefell v. Hodges: LGBTQ won.

SOURCE of the historic record:

On how typical American 'pro life' positions circa 2020 has zero to do with belief in God --

Since young, I always loved to ask people probing and deep questions.

Just loved it.

Love doing that to people.

So, I did so with 'Christians' by the dozens. I have talked with and asked questions and listened to about about 80-100 church attenders over many decades in many different in churches/cities.

Most did not believe in Christ risen and doing miracles -- in other words, they didn't actually believe.

These were 'Christians' in the typical American way of using the word.

Fact: I was able to either hear directly -- e.g. "Christ was a wise man...." (shakes head 'no' in response to my question about did he raise the dead)... -- or easily get the implied meaning of their chosen wordings to often find out whether they believed.

Most didn't believe in most churches.

Does that help?

So, what you are referring to is really "Christendom", and not actually 'Christianity' in a sense of belief:

The word Christendom encompasses the Medieval and Renaissance idea of the central place of Christianity in the lives of nations, countries, states, and individuals. The definition of Christendom is a group of people or nations under a Christian set of morals and values.
--ChristendomCandace C. Shields)

Example: actual belief in God entails believing all infants that die will be under the Grace and Mercy and fairness of God -- not guilty of any sins of their own of course. Generally according to Christ already possessing the Kingdom of Heaven(!) --
Luke 18:16 But Jesus called the children to Him and said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

See?

In modern American politics, what's typically called a 'pro life' political position in the typical modern way, circa 2020 -- only means merely pro birth alone, and does not usually actually mean pro life for already living people in distress, etc. (e.g. such a person may have zero concern about refugees dying on the southern border, etc.) -- the so-called American pro-life political position typically has nothing to do with actual belief in God.

But, often, many such highly politicized people caught up in worldly political stuff and putting their faith/trust/hope/belief in various mortal human leaders may try to present that they believe in Christ or the Bible, or just are so used to such hypocrisy (empty claims without even listening to Christ) that they don't even have any awareness of the hypocrisy any longer. Not all. But too many.


Does that help clarify?

 

[blü 2]

You are from a parallel world of atheism. We are in the realm of theism. That is why it is odd. But in our world, there is the song: "forever young", YouTube."

If you get comfort from your beliefs, if you fail to understand death as integral to life and to nature, if the threat of eternal harm seems credible to you, then I expect you'll act accordingly. From my point of view the important question is, what's true in reality? so as to distinguish facts from stories; it seems remarkable to me that believers have no concept of a real god, one who has objective existence ─ as demonstrated by the absence of any objective test to determine whether my keyboard is God or not.

As for 'Dying words of famous atheists', that isn't addressed to atheists but to the faithful. It comes from an ancient line of salesmanship where first you create fear, and then you purport to offer the remedy. This particular example is to offer reassurance that if they keep buying the product, all will be well. But if you take a step back and look at it again, it also demonstrates that 'eternal life' and 'damnation' represent emotional states in certain of the living, not coherent information about reality.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Some Christians are just like some Muslims who want to impose their religion on others, shove it down their throats and punish those who won't agree.

Fine, let's have prayer in public schools. Start with satanists, then Muslims, then pagans, then pastafarians and including atheists and then the Christians can have their turn to preach. But we also need to give time to Buddhists, Hindus and anyone else who wants to pray in public.

Exactly right.

When the Christians say they want prayers allowed in school, they mean ONLY Christian prayers, and all hell would break out if ALL the different religions were allowed to pray in schools.

 

[rational experiences]

The basis of human fear and war mongering is the basis of religious idealism.

To own and control the population with one common belief, to try to establish common self unity.

Which first begins O with the whole planet itself. For although each religious ideal is a one quote, the planet itself is the first O one holy body actually.

So teaching, once was about one. And language/worded diversity expressed in the teachings only due to DNA difference with language of the tongues the variances. Rationally the teachings said, the ideal of one unified world community living condition as One was taught.

Hence a building visitation or a name sake owned no place in that teaching idealism, to live peacefully as a unified world community. Why the founding Fathers in America owned a non denominational theme.....Stone Masons, that accepted religious holy spiritual diversity without establishment.

The governing owned that ideal itself.

Human fear today, to be forced into complying once again as a historic repeated human condition. To claim self righteousness by DNA diverse self expression.

Therefore when you begin to compare teaching in religious idealism to school teaching, once philosophy of life owned all the teaching.

Schools separated from religious idealism, for the correct reasons, to segregate a common denominator to be allowed to be chosen by the Church or group visitation without imposing that schooling owned a religious ideal. When schooling is owner of a moral common human responsibility first, which is family and naturally innate in the family unification.

Which is that world community.

Any religious ideal therefore should know its place in what it wants to culturally express, without enforcing that their owned cultural diversity should be considered to be the only or the best. Cultural diversity should be a shared and honoured human ideal.

The school system therefore also should be honoured as just being a schooling for community responsibility without inferring qualities to cultural diversity as being the reasoning for a school activity.

The school therefore represents the place for cultural diversity to be shared without cultural diversity controlling it.

Christianity in the past owned its ideals as being an everyday human life abuse as a common trait in civilization status, and it is owner of a fear invoked civilization memory and community status. To be abused by whoever was the richest and wanted to be the greatest O world leader controller, rather than share the diverse equal living conditions given to us all.

Which is what is really being stated today, the fear of being abused once again.

 

[questfortruth]

absence of any objective test to determine whether my keyboard is God or not.

One should have the definition of God. I follow my definition: Word God is the name of God. I am right until I would be proven wrong.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are you sure? You guys have been saying that for the last 2000 years.

Ciao

- viole

To be fair, it's all just a matter of perspective. If taken against a backdrop of millions of years, a few thousand here or there is pretty meaningless.
Of course, compared to an average human lifespan, this rhetoric does have a somewhat repetitive feel...!

 

[rational experiences]

One should have the definition of God. I follow my definition: Word God is the name of God. I am right until I would be proven wrong.

Given that there a finite number of words in any language, is it possible (as often claimed) to produce an infinite number of sentences in any natural human language?



Dr J. Nicholas, Hereford, Herefordshire

• With 26 letters in the English alphabet and many duplications of spellings, in English, I doubt it. Doubtless my peers, like Mr Hollingsworth, etc., will disagree.
  
  
  William Goslong, Niederkorn Luxembourg

• I think a logician or mathematician would know best, but this sounds like the Douglas Adams 'proof' of all life being impossible using a finite-vs-infinite equation. All the same, I don't believe you can propose that there is a finity of words: it's like saying there can be no new ideas. Languages alter whenever they need to embrace new concepts and inventions, so there is no end to the number of words while there remains no end to thought. Even if you were able to 'freeze' all languages at a moment of development, the range of thought accessible through it would still be staggeringly huge. Language reflects culture, and different languages encompass different ways of thinking
  Given that there a finite number of words in any language, is it possible (as often claimed) to produce an infinite number of sentences in any natural human language? | Notes and Queries | guardian.co.uk
  • 
    
  • 
    Words as spoken by a human being a human, who is not any God

A human gives anything they study a given name. Does that make the name a God owner? No. For it is not a God giving the ideas of naming pre formed and pre owned bodies of self presence. A human is applying the word/expression and meaning.

If that status were not real....SCIENCE for human inventive scientific artificial conditions, then why did you also quote, never give GOD a name again?

What does the Bible say about not worshiping God?
Deuteronomy 12:31 You must not worship the LORD your God in this way, because they practice for their gods every abomination which the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. 2 Kings 16:3

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are from a parallel world of atheism. We are in the realm of theism. That is why it is odd. But in our world, there is the song: "forever young", YouTube.

What a ridiculous collection of self-serving tripe.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Some Christians are just like some Muslims who want to impose their religion on others, shove it down their throats and punish those who won't agree.

Fine, let's have prayer in public schools. Start with satanists, then Muslims, then pagans, then pastafarians and including atheists and then the Christians can have their turn to preach. But we also need to give time to Buddhists, Hindus and anyone else who wants to pray in public.

On behalf of all atheists who believe as I believe, we humbly decline your kind offer to preach in schools.
But we thank you for your consideration.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, but we have forgotten the way of living in US prior to 1962 AD. There was no problem for everybody.
Remember, and recall. Go to archives.

Clearly there is some context here I am missing.
You're not suggesting life was rosy pre-1962, are you?
Are you suggesting Engel v. Vitale was the beginning of the downfall?

Hoping you can clarify my confusion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As for 'Dying words of famous atheists', that isn't addressed to atheists but to the faithful. It comes from an ancient line of salesmanship where first you create fear, and then you purport to offer the remedy. This particular example is to offer reassurance that if they keep buying the product, all will be well. But if you take a step back and look at it again, it also demonstrates that 'eternal life' and 'damnation' represent emotional states in certain of the living, not coherent information about reality.

It takes a strange sense of self-delusion for anyone to get satisfaction from the words of a dying man. As if they hold more wisdom in their last moments than the rest of their life.
But even were it so, it would take a couple of pretty dramatic changes to make the video informative;

1) It would need to contain atheists...as opposed to deists and theists. I mean...Ghandi? WTF?
2) It would need to dispassionately poll a set of atheists, not cherry pick people whose words, taken out of context, fit a narrative. I mean, Christopher Hitchens is much more of an atheist than most of those listed. His last words? 'Capitalism, downfall'. He repeated those words later, since he'd fallen asleep between his first and second utterances of them.

My grandfather was a Christian, and his last words weren't particularly pleasant (he was a scared old man, not ready to die, basically). I don't read anything into that in terms of his faith, apparent lack thereof, or the Truth of anything. People aren't at their best in their final moments, commonly enough. I generally expect more thought and coherence from people when they're not facing imminent death, regardless of their faith, or their lack of faith.

 

[questfortruth]

Clearly there is some context here I am missing.
You're not suggesting life was rosy pre-1962, are you?
Are you suggesting Engel v. Vitale was the beginning of the downfall?

Hoping you can clarify my confusion.

The actual life in US was more theistic than atheistic prior to 1962, than after.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The actual life in US was more theistic than atheistic prior to 1962, than after.

Rates of religious belief were quite high before 1620, too.
But what's your point?